Evidence Hub

Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis

B. Langford, M. So, S. Raybardhan, V. Leung, Duncan J. Westwood, D. Macfadden, Jean-Paul R. Soucy, N. Daneman

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2020

3,338 participants · 1,394 citations

Abstract

Background Bacterial co-pathogens are commonly identified in viral respiratory infections and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. Aims To determine the prevalence of bacterial co-infection (at presentation) and secondary infection (after presentation) in patients with COVID-19. Sources We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE databases for English language literature from 2019 to April 16, 2020. Studies were included if they (a) evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 and (b) reported the prevalence of acute bacterial infection. Content Data were extracted by a single reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The main outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with an acute bacterial infection. Any bacteria detected from non-respiratory-tract or non-bloodstream sources were excluded. Of 1308 studies screened, 24 were eligible and included in the rapid review representing 3338 patients with COVID-19 evaluated for acute bacterial infection. In the meta-analysis, bacterial co-infection (estimated on presentation) was identified in 3.5% of patients (95%CI 0.4–6.7%) and secondary bacterial infection in 14.3% of patients (95%CI 9.6–18.9%). The overall proportion of COVID-19 patients with bacterial infection was 6.9% (95%CI 4.3–9.5%). Bacterial infection was more common in critically ill patients (8.1%, 95%CI 2.3–13.8%). The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,338 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free