Background: This systematic review had three aims: i) to determine the frequency of anosmia (or other smell disorders) and dysgeusia (or other taste disorders) in COVID-19 patients; ii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis; and iii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are prognostic factors for impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. Methods: On April 20th, 2020, we search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and MedXriv. We used terms related to COVID-19, smell and taste disorders. We selected case series, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies. We included studies with COVID-19 patients describing their symptoms; studies that compared smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 patients and otherwise healthy subjects; and studies comparing smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 severe and mild/moderate cases. Because of methodological heterogeneity and the limited number of results, a qualitative synthesis is presented. Results: From 31 reports, we selected six (n=2,757). Six studies reported the proportion of smell and taste disorders among COVID-19 patients. Two reports studied whether smell and taste disorders were independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. No reports studied the association with impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. The frequency of anosmia ranged between 22%-68%. The definition of taste disorders varied greatly, with dysgeusia present in 33% and ageusia in 20%. People who reported loss of smell and taste had six-fold higher odds of being COVID-19 positive; similarly, anosmia and ageusia were associated with 10-fold higher odds of COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusions: The frequency of smell and taste disorders is as high as other symptoms, thus, at least anosmia for which the definition was more consistent, could be included in lists of COVID-19 symptoms. Although there is promising evidence, it is premature to conclude that smell and taste disorders are strongly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020181308

Background: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a neurological autoimmune disease that can lead to respiratory failure and death. Whether COVID-19 patients are at high risk of GBS is unknown. Through a systematic review of case reports, we aimed to summarize the main features of patients with GBS and COVID-19. Methods: Without any restrictions, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and MedXriv (April 23 rd, 2020). Two reviewers screened and studied titles, abstracts and reports. We extracted information to characterize sociodemographic variables, clinical presentation, laboratory results, treatments and outcomes. Results: Eight reports (n=12 patients) of GBS and COVID-19 were identified; one was a Miller Fisher case. The age ranged between 23 and 77 years, and there were more men (9/102). GBS symptoms started between 5 and 24 days after those of COVID-19. The protein levels in cerebrospinal fluid samples ranged between 40 and 193 mg/dl. None of the cerebrospinal fluid samples tested positive for COVID-19. Six patients debuted with ascendant weakness and three with facial weakness. Five patients had favourable evolution, four remained with relevant symptoms or required critical care and one died; the Miller Fisher case had successful resolution. Conclusions: GBS is emerging as a disease that may appear in COVID-19 patients. Although limited, preliminary evidence appears to suggest that GBS occurs after COVID-19 onset. Practitioners and investigators should have GBS in mind as they look after COVID-19 patients and conduct research on novel aspects of COVID-19. Comparison with GBS patients in the context of another viral outbreak (Zika), revealed similarities and differences that deserves further scrutiny and epidemiological studies.

Background: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a neurological autoimmune disease that can lead to respiratory failure and death. Whether COVID-19 patients are at high risk of GBS is unknown. Through a systematic review of case reports, we aimed to summarize the main features of patients with GBS and COVID-19. Methods: Without any restrictions, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and MedXriv (April 23rd, 2020). Two reviewers screened and studied titles, abstracts and reports. We extracted information to characterize sociodemographic variables, clinical presentation, laboratory results, treatments and outcomes. Results: Eight reports (n=12 patients) of GBS and COVID-19 were identified; one was a Miller Fisher case. Overall, the median age was 62.5 (interquartile range (IQR)=54.5-70.5) years, and there were more men (9/102). GBS symptoms started between 5 and 24 days after those of COVID-19. The median protein levels in cerebrospinal fluid samples was 101.5 mg/dl (IQR=51-145). None of the cerebrospinal fluid samples tested positive for COVID-19. Six patients debuted with ascendant weakness and three with facial weakness. Five patients had favourable evolution, four remained with relevant symptoms or required critical care and one died; the Miller Fisher case had successful resolution. Conclusions: GBS is emerging as a disease that may appear in COVID-19 patients. Although limited, preliminary evidence appears to suggest that GBS occurs after COVID-19 onset. Practitioners and investigators should have GBS in mind as they look after COVID-19 patients and conduct research on novel aspects of COVID-19. Comparison with GBS patients in the context of another viral outbreak (Zika), revealed similarities and differences that deserves further scrutiny and epidemiological studies.

BackgroundGenitourinary tuberculosis is the third most common form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Diagnosis is difficult because of unspecific clinical manifestations and low accuracy of conventional tests. Unfortunately, the delayed diagnosis impacts the urinary tract severely. Nucleic acid amplification tests yield fast results, and among these, new technologies can also detect drug resistance. There is lack of consensus regarding the use of these tests in genitourinary tuberculosis; we therefore aimed to assess the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis and to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of a reference standard and a nucleic acid amplification test for diagnosis of urinary tract tuberculosis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Apr 14, 2016. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We analyzed data in groups with the same index test. Then, we generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when studies were not heterogeneous.ResultsWe identified eleven relevant studies from ten articles, giving information on PCR, LCR and Xpert MTB/RIF tests. All PCR studies were “in-house” tests, with different gene targets and had several quality concerns therefore we did not proceed with a pooled analysis. Only one study used LCR. Xpert studies were of good quality and not heterogeneous, pooled sensitivity was 0·87 (0·66–0·96) and specificity was 0·91 (0·84–0·95).ConclusionPCR studies were highly heterogeneous. Among Xpert MTB/RIF studies, specificity was favorable with an acceptable confidence interval, however new studies can update meta-analysis and get more precise estimates. Further high-quality studies are urgently needed to improve diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42016039020.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2476-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Cardiovascular prognostic models guide treatment allocation and support clinical decisions. Whether there are valid models for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) populations is unknown. Objective This study sought to identify and critically appraise cardiovascular prognostic models developed, tested, or recalibrated in LAC populations. Methods The systematic review followed the CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) framework (PROSPERO [International Prospective Register of Systemic Reviews]: CRD42018096553). Reports were included if they followed a prospective design and presented a multivariable prognostic model; reports were excluded if they studied symptomatic individuals or patients. The following search engines were used: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS. Risk of bias assessment was conducted with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). No quantitative summary was conducted due to large heterogeneity. Results From 2,506 search results, 8 studies (N = 130,482 participants) were included for qualitative synthesis. We could not identify any cardiovascular prognostic model developed for LAC populations; reviewed reports evaluated available models or conducted a recalibration analysis. Only 1 study included a Caribbean population (Puerto Rico); 3 studies were retrieved from Chile; 2 from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay; and 1 from Mexico. Four studies included population-based samples, and the other 4 included people affiliated to a health facility (e.g., prevention clinics). Most studied participants were older than 50 years, and there were more women in 5 reports. The Framingham model was assessed 6 times, and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation was assessed twice. Across the prognostic models assessed, calibration varied widely from one population to another, showing great overestimation particularly in some subgroups (e.g., highest risk). Discrimination (e.g., C-statistic) was acceptable for most models; for Framingham it ranged from 0.66 to 0.76. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association pooled equation showed the best discrimination (0.78). That there were few outcome events was the most important methodological limitation of the identified studies. Conclusions No cardiovascular prognostic models have been developed in LAC, hampering key evidence to inform public health and clinical practice. Validation studies need to improve methodological issues.

Background Leptospirosis is a worldwide prevalent zoonosis and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a leading global disease burden. Because of pathophysiological changes in the kidney, it has been suggested that these conditions may be associated. However, the extent of this interaction has not been synthetized. We aimed to systematically review and critically appraise the evidence on the association between leptospirosis and CKD. Methodology/Principal findings Observational studies with a control group were selected. Leptospirosis, confirmed with laboratory methods, and CKD also based on a laboratory assessment, were the exposures and outcomes of interest. The search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies selected for qualitative synthesis were assessed for risk of bias following the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. 5,981 reports were screened, and 2 (n = 3,534) were included for qualitative synthesis. The studies were conducted in Taiwan and Nicaragua; these reported cross-sectional and longitudinal estimates. In the general population, the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower (p<0.001) in people testing positive for antileptospira antibodies (eGFR = 98.3) than in negative controls (eGFR = 100.8). Among sugarcane applicants with high creatinine, those who were seropositive had lower eGFR (mean difference: -10.08). In a prospective analysis, people with high antileptospira antibodies titer at baseline and follow-up, had worse eGFR (p<0.05). Conclusion Although the available evidence suggests there may be a positive association between leptospirosis and CKD, whereby leptospirosis could be a risk factor for CKD, it is still premature to draw conclusions. There is an urgent need for research on this association.

Background: We conducted a systematic review to study the association between diabetes and malaria as well as malaria severity. Methods: The search was conducted in Embase, Global Health, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts were screened, full-text studied and information extracted for qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I criteria. The exposure was diabetes and the outcome malaria or malaria severity. Results: Of 1992 results, three studies were included (n=7,226). Two studies found strong associations: people with diabetes had higher odds of malaria (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.46 (95% CI: 1.06-2.03)) and severe malaria (aOR: 2.98 (95% CI: 1.25-7.09)). One study did not find conclusive evidence: aOR for severe malaria was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.71-1.28). Risk of bias was high in all the studies. Conclusions: Although the available evidence on the association between diabetes and malaria is limited, the results may suggest there is a non-trivial positive relationship between these conditions.

Background: Cutaneous leishmaniasis is a prevalent communicable disease in low- and middle-income countries, where non-communicable diseases like skin cancer are on the rise. However, the study of multi-morbidity or co-morbidity between communicable and non-communicable diseases is limited, and even null for some tropical or neglected diseases. Nevertheless, looking at these conditions together instead of as isolated entities in places where these illnesses exist, could show new prevention and treatment paths. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise the epidemiological evidence on the association between cutaneous leishmaniasis and skin cancer. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review using five search engines (Embase, Medline, Global Health, Scopus and Web of Science). We sought observational studies in which the outcome was skin cancer whilst the exposure was cutaneous leishmaniasis; these conditions should have had laboratory or pathology confirmation. Results: No epidemiological investigations have studied the association between cutaneous leishmaniasis and skin cancer. Most of the evidence about the association of interest is still based on case reports and other clinical observations rather than strong epidemiological observational studies. Conclusions: Research is much needed to verify the repeatedly clinical observation that cutaneous leishmaniasis may be a risk factor for skin cancer. This evidence could inform and guide early diagnosis or prevention of skin cancer in survivors of cutaneous leishmaniasis or where cutaneous leishmaniasis is still highly prevalent. Registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42018111230; registered on 16/10/18.