No abstract

No abstract

Mucosal barrier alterations may play a role in the pathogenesis of several diseases, including COVID-19. In this study we evaluate the association between bacterial translocation markers and systemic inflammation at the earliest time-point after hospitalization and at the last 72 h of hospitalization in survivors and non-survivors COVID-19 patients. Sixty-six SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive patients and nine non-COVID-19 pneumonia controls were admitted in this study. Blood samples were collected at hospital admission (T1) (Controls and COVID-19 patients) and 0-72 h before hospital discharge (T2, alive or dead) to analyze systemic cytokines and chemokines, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) concentrations and soluble CD14 (sCD14) levels. THP-1 human monocytic cell line was incubated with plasma from survivors and non-survivors COVID-19 patients and their phenotype, activation status, TLR4, and chemokine receptors were analyzed by flow cytometry. COVID-19 patients presented higher IL-6, IFN-γ, TNF-α, TGF-β1, CCL2/MCP-1, CCL4/MIP-1β, and CCL5/RANTES levels than controls. Moreover, LPS and sCD14 were higher at hospital admission in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Non-survivors COVID-19 patients had increased LPS levels concomitant with higher IL-6, TNF-α, CCL2/MCP-1, and CCL5/RANTES levels at T2. Increased expression of CD16 and CCR5 were identified in THP-1 cells incubated with the plasma of survivor patients obtained at T2. The incubation of THP-1 with T2 plasma of non-survivors COVID-19 leads to higher TLR4, CCR2, CCR5, CCR7, and CD69 expression. In conclusion, the coexistence of increased microbial translocation and hyperinflammation in patients with severe COVID-19 may lead to higher monocyte activation, which may be associated with worsening outcomes, such as death.

Summary Population‐based prevalence surveys of Covid‐19 contribute to establish the burden of infection, the role of asymptomatic and mild infections in transmission, and allow more precise decisions about reopen policies. We performed a systematic review to evaluate qualitative aspects of these studies, assessing their reliability and compiling practices that can influence the methodological quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, bioRxiv and medRxiv, and included cross‐sectional studies using molecular and/or serological tests to estimate the prevalence of Covid‐19 in the general population. Survey quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. A correspondence analysis correlated methodological parameters of each study to identify patterns related to higher, intermediate and lower risks of bias. The available data described 37 surveys from 19 countries. The majority were from Europe and America, used antibody testing, and reached highly heterogeneous sample sizes and prevalence estimates. Minority communities were disproportionately affected by Covid‐19. Important risk of bias was detected in four domains: sample size, data analysis with sufficient coverage, measurements in standard way and response rate. The correspondence analysis showed few consistent patterns for high risk of bias. Intermediate risk of bias was related to American and European studies, municipal and regional initiatives, blood samples and prevalence >1%. Low risk of bias was related to Asian studies, nationwide initiatives, reverse‐transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests and prevalence <1%. We identified methodological standards applied worldwide in Covid‐19 prevalence surveys, which may assist researchers with the planning, execution and reporting of future population‐based surveys.