Background. Coinfections have a potential role in increased morbidity and mortality rates during pandemics. Our investigation is aimed at evaluating the viral coinfection prevalence in COVID-19 patients. Methods. We systematically searched scientific databases, including Medline, Scopus, WOS, and Embase, from December 1, 2019, to December 30, 2020. Preprint servers such as medRxiv were also scanned to find other related preprint papers. All types of studies evaluating the viral coinfection prevalence in COVID-19 patients were considered. We applied the random effects model to pool all of the related studies. Results. Thirty-three studies including 10484 patients were identified. The viral coinfection estimated pooled prevalence was 12.58%; 95% CI: 7.31 to 18.96). Blood viruses (pooled prevalence: 12.48%; 95% CI: 8.57 to 16.93) had the most frequent viral coinfection, and respiratory viruses (pooled prevalence: 4.32%; 95% CI: 2.78 to 6.15) had less frequent viral coinfection. The herpesvirus pooled prevalence was 11.71% (95% CI: 3.02 to 24.80). Also, the maximum and minimum of viral coinfection pooled prevalence were in AMRO and EMRO with 15.63% (95% CI: 3.78 to 33.31) and 7.05% (95% CI: 3.84 to 11.07), respectively. Conclusion. The lowest rate of coinfection belonged to respiratory viruses. Blood-borne viruses had the highest coinfection rate. Our results provide important data about the prevalence of blood-borne viruses among COVID-19 patients which can be critical when it comes to their treatment procedure.

Background To provide information about pathogens’ coinfection prevalence with SARS‐CoV‐2 could be a real help to save patients’ lives. This study aims to evaluate the pathogens’ coinfection prevalence among COVID‐19 patients. Method In order to find all of the relevant articles, we used systematic search approach. Research‐based databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, without language restrictions, were searched to identify the relevant bacterial, fungal, and viral coinfections among COVID‐19 cases from December 1, 2019, to August 23, 2021. In order to dig deeper, other scientific repositories such as Medrxiv were probed. Results A total of 13,023 studies were found through systematic search. After thorough analysis, only 64 studies with 61,547 patients were included in the study. The most common causative agents of coinfection among COVID‐19 patients were bacteria (pooled prevalence: 20.97%; 95% CI: 15.95–26.46; I2: 99.9%) and less frequent were virus coinfections (pooled prevalence: 12.58%; 95% CI: 7.31–18.96; I2: 98.7%). The pooled prevalence of fungal coinfections was also 12.60% (95% CI: 7.84–17.36; I2: 98.3%). Meta‐regression analysis showed that the age sample size and WHO geographic region did not influenced heterogeneity. Conclusion We identified a high prevalence of pathogenic microorganism coinfection among COVID‐19 patients. Because of this rate of coinfection empirical use of antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral treatment are advisable specifically at the early stage of COVID‐19 infection. We also suggest running simultaneously diagnostic tests to identify other microbiological agents’ coinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2.

Background The pandemic of SARS COV-2 raised the attention toward bacterial coinfection and their role in COVID-19 disease. This study aims to systematically review and identify the pooled prevalence of the bacterial coinfection in the related articles. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in international databases, including Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, to identify the articles on the prevalence of Bacterial coinfections in COIVD-19 patients from December 1, 2019, until December 30, 2020. All observational epidemiological studies that evaluated the prevalence of bacterial coinfections in COVID-19 patients included without any restriction. Results Forty two studies including total sample size of 54695 were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate for prevalence of bacterial coinfections was 20.97% (95% CI: 15.95 to 26.46) the pooled prevalence of bacterial coinfections was 5.20% (95% CI: 2.39 to 8.91) for Respiratory subtype and 4.79% (95% CI: 0.11 to 14.61) for Gastrointestinal subtype. The pooled prevalence for Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO) and South-East Asia Regional Office (SEARO) was 100 % (95% CI: 82.35 to 100.00) and 2.61 % (95% CI: 1.74 to 3.62). Conclusion This rate of coinfection poses a great danger toward patients especially those in critical condition. Although there are multiple complication and adverse effect related to extensive use of antibiotics to treat COVID-19 patients but it seems there is no other option except the applying them and it needs to be done carefully.

Microbial coinfections can increase the morbidity and mortality rates of viral respiratory diseases. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of fungal coinfections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and Embase were searched without language restrictions to identify the related research on COVID-19 patients with fungal coinfections from December 1, 2019, to December 30, 2020. A random-effects model was used for analysis. The sample size included 2,246 patients from 8 studies. The pooled prevalence of fungal coinfections was 12.60%. The frequency of fungal subtype coinfections was 3.71% for Aspergillus, 2.39% for Candida, and 0.39% for other. The World Health Organization's Regional Office for Europe and Regional Office for Southeast Asia had the highest (23.28%) and lowest (4.53%) estimated prevalence of fungal coinfection, respectively. Our findings showed a high prevalence of fungal coinfections in COVID-19 cases, which is a likely contributor to mortality in COVID-19 patients. Early identification of fungal pathogens in the laboratory for COVID-19 patients can lead to timely treatment and prevention of further damage by this hidden infection.

Background. Currently, a novel coronavirus found in 2019 known as SARS-CoV-2 is the etiological agent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Various parameters including clinical manifestations and molecular evaluation can affect the accuracy of diagnosis. This review aims to discuss the various clinical symptoms and molecular evaluation results in COVID-19 patients, to point out the importance of onset symptoms, type, and timing of the sampling, besides the methods that are used for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods. A systematic literature review of current articles in the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Results. Of the 12946 patients evaluated in this investigation, 7643 were confirmed to be COVID-19 positive by molecular techniques, particularly the RT-PCR/qPCR combined technique (qRT-PCR). In most of the studies, all of the enrolled cases had 100% positive results for molecular evaluation. Among the COVID-19 patients who were identified as such by positive PCR results, most of them showed fever or cough as the primary clinical signs. Less common symptoms observed in clinically confirmed cases were hemoptysis, bloody sputum, mental disorders, and nasal congestion. The most common clinical samples for PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were obtained from throat, oropharyngeal, and nasopharyngeal swabs, while tears and conjunctival secretions seem to be the least common clinical samples for COVID-19 diagnosis among studies. Also, different conserved SARS-CoV-2 gene sequences could be targeted for qRT-PCR detection. The suggested molecular assay being used by most laboratories for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 is qRT-PCR. Conclusion. There is a worldwide concern on the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of well-managed global control. Hence, it is crucial to update the molecular diagnostics protocols for handling the situation. This is possible by understanding the available advances in assays for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Good sampling procedure and using samples with enough viral loads, also considering the onset symptoms, may reduce the qRT-PCR false-negative results in symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Selection of the most efficient primer-probe for target genes and samples containing enough viral loads to search for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 helps detecting the virus on time using qRT-PCR.