The coronavirus disease 2019 and effect on liver function: a hidden and vital interaction beyond the respiratory system

Hosseini, Parastoo; Afzali, Shervin; Karimi, Mohammadreza; Zandi, Milad; Zebardast, Arghavan; Latifi, Tayebe; Tabibzadeh, Alireza; Ramezani, Aboozar; Zakeri, Armin; Zakeri, Amirmohammad; Abedi, Behnam; Soltani, Saber; Farahani, Abbas

doi:10.1097/mrm.0000000000000267

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 217 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we tend to calculate the pooled prevalence based on WHO territorial office data and perform spatial analysis in several geographical districts to distinguish the high-risk area for viral coinfection [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76], but this estimation may be unreliable because of the small number of studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viral Coinfection among COVID-19 Patient Groups: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Malekifar

Pakzad

Shahbahrami

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viral Coinfection among COVID-19 Patient Groups: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Malekifar

Pakzad

Shahbahrami

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this in mind, both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 exploit angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, while MERS-CoV employs dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4, also known as CD26) (5)(6)(7). The binding of the spike glycoproteins of SARS-CoV-2 (2SP) to ACE-2 enables the process of cell entry (8,9).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Cell Receptors and Downstream Cascades: A Review of Molecular Aspects and Potential Therapeutic Targets in COVID-19

Afzali

AshtarNakhaei

Shiari

et al. 2021

Arch Pediatr Infect Dis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: There have been two coronavirus-related pandemics during the past 18 years, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV in 2002 and 2012, respectively. Seven years after the emergence of MERS, a new coronavirus (i.e., SARS-CoV-2) was detected in several patients in 2019. SARS-CoV-2 spread widely, and its high prevalence enabled the virus to start a new pandemic in 2020. It is believed that the higher infectivity of the virus in comparison to that of SARS-CoV is related to its molecular interaction affinity of transmembrane spike glycoprotein and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) cell receptors. Moreover, the primary reason for the high case fatality rate (CFR) is the cytokine storm and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of the immune system response to the invaders. Hence, a solid understanding of the components involved in the mechanism of viral entry and immune system response is crucial for finding approaches to disrupt the virus interplay and neutralizing its impacts on the host immune system. In this review, we investigated the molecular aspect and potential therapeutic targets associated with cell receptors and downstream signaling cascades. Evidence Acquisition: In this review, we presented the available information regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A systematic search was implemented on several online databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus during 2019-2021 using the following keywords: "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "ACE-2", "Therapeutic Targets", "Acute respiratory distress syndrome", and "Cytokine Storm". Results: Various internal or external agents are responsible for the virus infectivity and stimulating acute immune system response. Since currently there is no cure for the treatment of COVID-19, several repurposed drugs can be employed to disrupt the process of viral entry and mitigate the symptoms raised by the cytokine storm. Inhibition of several agents, including signal transduction mediators and TMPRSS2 may be momentous. Conclusions: Despite the increase in the CFR, no drugs were developed with significant efficacy. Understanding the virus entry mechanism and the immune system’s role could help us surmount the problems in developing a promising drug or employing the repurposed ones.

show abstract

“… 3 Mass testing against SARS‐CoV‐2 and in some circumstances alone with other bacterial, viral, or fungal microbiota is also encouraged for a wide range of COVID‐19 control measures, such as screening for community transmission 4 and evaluation for disease progression of COVID‐19 patients with/without coinfection of other microbial agents. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Mass testing against SARS-CoV-2 and in some circumstances alone with other bacterial, viral, or fungal microbiota is also encouraged for a wide range of COVID-19 control measures, such as screening for community transmission 4 and evaluation for disease progression of COVID-19 patients with/without coinfection of other microbial agents. [5][6][7][8] Pooling of clinical specimens for mass detection of SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid testing has been reported to be effective in increasing diagnostic capacity with sufficient accuracy [9][10][11] for prompt disease intervention, especially when the prevalence of infected cases is low. In Taiwan, routine diagnosis of COVID-19 among individuals with suspected disease is conducted through a comprehensive nationwide SARS-CoV-2 laboratory network that comprises a total of 245 clinical laboratories at regional hospitals and medical institutions with a maximum daily capacity of 149,660 tests as of September 27, 2021.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of conventional and point‐of‐care real‐time RT‐PCR tests for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 through a pooled testing strategy

Liu

2022

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The rapid identification and isolation of individuals infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 are fundamental countermeasures for the efficient control of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which has affected millions of people around the world. Real‐time RT‐PCR is one of the most commonly applied reference methods for virus detection, and the use of pooled testing has been proposed as an effective way to increase the throughput of routine diagnostic tests. However, the clinical applicability of different types of real‐time RT‐PCR tests in a given group size remains inconclusive due to inconsistent regional disease prevalence and test demands. Methods In this study, the performance of one dual‐target conventional and two point‐of‐care real‐time RT‐PCR tests in a 5‐specimen pooled testing strategy for the detection of SARS‐COV‐2 was evaluated. Results We demonstrated the proof of concept that all of these real‐time RT‐PCR tests could feasibly detect SARS‐CoV‐2 from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens that contain viral RNA loads in the range of 3.48 × 10 5 to 3.42 × 10 2 copies/ml through pooled testing in a group size of 5 with overall positive percent agreement (pooling vs. individual testing) ranging from 100% to 93.75%. Furthermore, the two POC real‐time RT‐PCR tests exhibited comparable sensitivity to that of the dual‐target conventional one when clinical specimens were tested individually. Conclusion Our findings support the feasibility of using real‐time RT‐PCR tests developed as a variety of platforms in routine laboratory detection of suspected COVID‐19 cases through a pooled testing strategy that is beneficial to increasing the daily diagnostic capacity.

show abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 and effect on liver function: a hidden and vital interaction beyond the respiratory system

Cited by 18 publications

References 217 publications

Viral Coinfection among COVID-19 Patient Groups: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Viral Coinfection among COVID-19 Patient Groups: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Human Cell Receptors and Downstream Cascades: A Review of Molecular Aspects and Potential Therapeutic Targets in COVID-19

Evaluation of conventional and point‐of‐care real‐time RT‐PCR tests for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 through a pooled testing strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About