Evidence Hub

Co-Infection with Common Respiratory Pathogens and SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia and Laboratory Biochemistry Findings: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of 78 Patients from a Single Center in China

Manling Tang, Yue-Qi Li, Xiang Chen, Hui Lin, Zhongbiao Jiang, Dai-Li Gu, Xun Chen, Cai-Xi Tang et al.

Medical Science Monitor, 2020

78 participants · 32 citations

Abstract

Background This retrospective study aimed to investigate co-infections with common respiratory pathogens and SARS-CoV-2 and laboratory biochemistry findings in patients with COVID-19 in the Zhuzhou area of China, in order to provide a reference for the disease assessment and clinical treatment of COVID-19. Material/Methods The clinical data of COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital of Zhuzhou City from January 28 to March 15, 2020, as well as laboratory test results for respiratory pathogens and biochemical indicators, were collected to conduct correlation analyses. All patients were diagnosed based on fluorescence-based PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2. Results Eleven of the 78 patients (14.1%) were co-infected with other respiratory pathogens, among which Mycoplasma pneumoniae (n=5, 45.5%) and respiratory syncytial virus (n=4, 36.4%) were the most frequent. There were 8 patients co-infected with 1 other pathogen and 3 patients co-infected with 2 other pathogens. Compared with mono-infected COVID-19 patients, patients with co-infections had significantly higher levels of procalcitonin (P=0.002). Conclusions The findings showed that Mycoplasma pneumonia and respiratory syncytial virus were the most common co-infections in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Increased levels of PCT in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were associated with co-infection.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 78 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