Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Diabetes and infection: review of the epidemiology, mechanisms and principles of treatment

An association between diabetes and infection has been recognised for many years, with infection being an important cause of death and morbidity in people with diabetes. The COVID-19 pandemic has re-kindled an interest in the complex relationship between diabetes and infection. Some infections occur almost exclusively in people with diabetes, often with high mortality rates without early diagnosis and treatment. However, more commonly, diabetes is a complicating factor in many infections. A reciprocal relationship occurs whereby certain infections and their treatments may also increase the risk of diabetes. People with diabetes have a 1.5- to 4-fold increased risk of infection. The risks are the most pronounced for kidney infection, osteomyelitis and foot infection, but are also increased for pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, skin infection and general sepsis. Outcomes from infection are worse in people with diabetes, with the most notable example being a twofold higher rate of death from COVID-19. Hyperglycaemia has deleterious effects on the immune response. Vascular insufficiency and neuropathy, together with altered skin, mucosal and gut microbial colonisation, contribute to the increased risk of infection. Vaccination is important in people with diabetes although the efficacy of certain immunisations may be compromised, particularly in the presence of hyperglycaemia. The principles of treatment largely follow those of the general population with certain notable exceptions.

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Proceedings of the Clinical Microbiology Open 2023: discussions about pandemic preparedness

The 4th Clinical Microbiology Open (CMO) took place in Carlsbad, California, on 10 and 11 February 2023. This event facilitated discussion between clinical and public health laboratory directors, government agencies, and industry representatives from the companies that make up ASM's Corporate Council. While many topics were discussed, much of the discussion focused on pandemic preparedness. There were four major questions addressed: (i) When is the perfect the enemy of good in pandemic testing? (ii) What other types of pathogens might cause another pandemic and how would this affect laboratory response? (iii) What research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of the pandemic response? (iv) What have we learned about the utility of self and at-home testing in future pandemics? This review serves as a summary of these discussions.

Wearing surgical face mask has no significant impact on auscultation assessment

Objective

During the COVID-19 pandemic, universal mask-wearing became one of the main public health interventions. Because of this, most physical examinations, including lung auscultation, were done while patients were wearing surgical face masks. The aim of this study was to investigate whether mask wearing has an impact on pulmonologist assessment during auscultation of the lungs.

Methods

This was a repeated measures crossover design study. Three pulmonologists were instructed to auscultate patients with previously verified prolonged expiration, wheezing, or crackles while patients were wearing or not wearing masks (physician and patients were separated by an opaque barrier). As a measure of pulmonologists' agreement in the assessment of lung sounds, we used Fleiss kappa (K).

Results

There was no significant difference in agreement on physician assessment of lung sounds in all three categories (normal lung sound, duration of expiration, and adventitious lung sound) whether the patient was wearing a mask or not, but there were significant differences among pulmonologists when it came to agreement of lung sound assessment.

Conclusion

Clinicians and health professionals are safer from respiratory infections when they are wearing masks, and patients should be encouraged to wear masks because our research proved no significant difference in agreement on pulmonologists' assessment of auscultated lung sounds whether or not patients wore masks.

Contraction of Respiratory Viral Infection During air Travel: An Under-Recognized Health Risk for Athletes

Air travel has an important role in the spread of viral acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Aircraft offer an ideal setting for the transmission of ARI because of a closed environment, crowded conditions, and close-contact setting. Numerous studies have shown that influenza and COVID-19 spread readily in an aircraft with one virus-positive symptomatic or asymptomatic index case. The numbers of secondary cases differ markedly in different studies most probably because of the wide variation of the infectiousness of the infector as well as the susceptibility of the infectees. The primary risk factor is sitting within two rows of an infectious passenger. Elite athletes travel frequently and are thus prone to contracting an ARI during travel. It is anecdotally known in the sport and exercise medicine community that athletes often contract ARI during air travel. The degree to which athletes are infected in an aircraft by respiratory viruses is unclear. Two recent studies suggest that 8% of Team Finland members traveling to major winter sports events contracted the common cold most probably during air travel. Further prospective clinical studies with viral diagnostics are needed to understand the transmission dynamics and to develop effective and socially acceptable preventive measures during air travel.

Wearing face masks while climbing stairs influences respiratory physiology

During the COVID-19 pandemic wearing face masks was mandatory. Nowadays, face masks are still encouraged indoors, especially in hospitals. People climbing stairs with masks describe unpredictable dyspnea. In this study, healthy adults climbed 5 floors with and without a mask. Various cardio-respiratory parameters were measured, including O2-saturation (O2-Sat) and end-tidal CO2(EtCO2), at baseline and on the top floor. Subjective indexes, such as Borg's scale, were evaluated. Thirty-two volunteers (16 males), median age 39 years (IQR 32.5-43), median BMI = 23.6 (IQR 21.5-25.1), with good fitness levels, participated. Comparing baseline to end-activity, median (IQR): O2-Sat change was -1.0% (-2-0) without mask, versus -3.0% (-4-0) with mask,p= 0.003; EtCO2+ 7.0 (+3.3-+9) without mask, versus +8.0 (+6-+12) with mask,p= 0.0001. Hypercarbia was seen in 5 (15.6%) participants without mask, median = 48 mmHg (IQR 47.5-51), and in 11 (34%) participants with mask, median = 50 mmHg (IQR 47-54),p< 0.001. Desaturation (O2-Sat < 95%) was seen in 5 (15.6%) participants without mask, median = 94% (IQR 93%-94%), and in 10 (31%) participants with mask, median = 91.5% (IQR 90%-93%),p= 0.06. Regression analysis demonstrated that only male sex was significantly associated with abnormal EtCO2(OR = 26.4, 95% CI = 1.9-366.4,p= 0.005). Ascent duration increased from median (IQR) of 94 s (86-100) without mask to 98 s (89-107) with mask,p< 0.001. Borg's scale of perceived exertion (range 0-10) increased from median (IQR) of 3.0 (2.5-3.87) without mask to 4.0 (3.0-4.37) with mask,p< 0.001. To conclude, during routine daily activities, such as stair-climbing, face masks cause dyspnea, and have measurable influences on ventilation, including true desaturation and hypercapnia, especially in males.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Interventional Study of Nonpharmaceutical Measures to Prevent COVID-19 Aboard Cruise Ships

Cruise ships carrying COVID-19-vaccinated populations applied near-identical nonpharmaceutical measures during July-November 2021; passenger masking was not applied on 2 ships. Infection risk for masked passengers was 14.58 times lower than for unmasked passengers and 19.61 times lower than in the community. Unmasked passengers' risk was slightly lower than community risk.

Seeing together: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic on understanding evidence

Conversations about evidence have become much more personal and more divisive over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a metaphor to carefully consider all the different aspects of "seeing" evidence can remind us that assembling a complete picture of information on any topic is necessarily a communal effort, made more robust by actively seeking to learn about and mitigate our blind spots. An approach to evidence that is curious, humble, and seeks relationship and partnership with others can help us see more clearly and completely.

The Efficacy of Multivitamin, Vitamin A, Vitamin B, Vitamin C, and Vitamin D Supplements in the Prevention and Management of COVID-19 and Long-COVID: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of any vitamin administration(s) in preventing and managing COVID-19 and/or long-COVID. Databases were searched up to May 2023 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing data on the effects of vitamin supplementation(s) versus placebo or standard of care on the two conditions of interest. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality between supplemented and non-supplemented individuals. Overall, 37 articles were included: two regarded COVID-19 and long-COVID prevention and 35 records the COVID-19 management. The effects of vitamin D in preventing COVID-19 and long-COVID were contrasting. Similarly, no conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of multivitamins, vitamin A, and vitamin B in COVID-19 management. A few positive findings were reported in some vitamin C trials but results were inconsistent in most outcomes, excluding all-cause mortality (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97). Vitamin D results were mixed in most aspects, including mortality, in which benefits were observed in regular administrations only (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Despite some benefits, results were mostly contradictory. Variety in recruitment and treatment protocols might explain this heterogeneity. Better-designed studies are needed to clarify these vitamins' potential effects against SARS-CoV-2.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Concordance between SARS-CoV-2 index individuals and their household contacts on index individual COVID-19 transmission cofactors: a comparison of self-reported and contact-reported information

BACKGROUND

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, several clinical trials have evaluated postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) among close contacts of an index individual with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because index individuals do not directly inform the efficacy of prevention interventions, they are seldom enrolled in COVID-19 PEP studies. However, adjusting for prognostic covariates such as an index individual's COVID-19 illness and risk behaviors can increase precision in PEP efficacy estimates, so approaches to accurately collecting this information about the index individual are needed. This analysis aimed to assess whether surveying household contacts captures the same information as surveying the index individual directly.

METHODS

REGN 2069/CoVPN 3502, a randomized controlled trial of COVID-19 PEP, enrolled household contacts of SARS-CoV-2 index individuals. CoVPN 3502-01 retrospectively enrolled and surveyed the index individuals. We compared responses to seven similar questions about the index individuals' transmission cofactors that were asked in both studies. We estimated the percent concordance between index individuals and their household contacts on each question, with 50% concordance considered equivalent to random chance.

RESULTS

Concordance between index individuals and contacts was high on the most objective questions, approximately 97% (95% CI: 90-99%) for index individual age group and 96% (88-98%) for hospitalization. Concordance was moderate for symptoms, approximately 85% (75-91%). Concordance on questions related to the index individual's behavior was only slightly better or no better than random: approximately 62% (51-72%) for whether they received COVID-19 treatment, 68% (57-77%) for sharing a bedroom, 70% (59-79%) for sharing a common room, and 49% (39-60%) for mask wearing at home. However, while contacts were surveyed within 96 h of the index individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the median time to enrollment in CoVPN 3502-01 was 240 days, which may have caused recall bias in our results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a need to survey index individuals directly in order to accurately capture their transmission cofactors, rather than relying on their household contacts to report on their behavior. The lag in enrolling participants into CoVPN 3502-01 also highlights the importance of timely enrollment to minimize recall bias.

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Immune and behavioral correlates of protection against symptomatic post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection

Introduction

We sought to determine pre-infection correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 post-vaccine inzfections (PVI) acquired during the first Omicron wave in the United States.

Methods

Serum and saliva samples from 176 vaccinated adults were collected from October to December of 2021, immediately before the Omicron wave, and assessed for SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG and IgA binding antibodies (bAb). Sera were also assessed for bAb using commercial assays, and for neutralization activity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants. PVI duration and severity, as well as risk and precautionary behaviors, were assessed by questionnaires.

Results

Serum anti-Spike IgG levels assessed by research assay, neutralization titers against Omicron subvariants, and low home risk scores correlated with protection against PVIs after multivariable regression analysis. Commercial assays did not perform as well as research assay, likely due to their lower dynamic range.

Discussion

In the 32 participants that developed PVI, anti-Spike IgG bAbs correlated with lower disease severity and shorter duration of illness.

A mixture of mobility and meteorological data provides a high correlation with COVID-19 growth in an infection-naive population: a study for Spanish provinces

Introduction

We use Spanish data from August 2020 to March 2021 as a natural experiment to analyze how a standardized measure of COVID-19 growth correlates with asymmetric meteorological and mobility situations in 48 Spanish provinces. The period of time is selected prior to vaccination so that the level of susceptibility was high, and during geographically asymmetric implementation of non-pharmacological interventions.

Methods

We develop reliable aggregated mobility data from different public sources and also compute the average meteorological time series of temperature, dew point, and UV radiance in each Spanish province from satellite data. We perform a dimensionality reduction of the data using principal component analysis and investigate univariate and multivariate correlations of mobility and meteorological data with COVID-19 growth.

Results

We find significant, but generally weak, univariate correlations for weekday aggregated mobility in some, but not all, provinces. On the other hand, principal component analysis shows that the different mobility time series can be properly reduced to three time series. A multivariate time-lagged canonical correlation analysis of the COVID-19 growth rate with these three time series reveals a highly significant correlation, with a median R-squared of 0.65. The univariate correlation between meteorological data and COVID-19 growth is generally not significant, but adding its two main principal components to the mobility multivariate analysis increases correlations significantly, reaching correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.98 in all provinces with a median R-squared of 0.85. This result is robust to different approaches in the reduction of dimensionality of the data series.

Discussion

Our results suggest an important effect of mobility on COVID-19 cases growth rate. This effect is generally not observed for meteorological variables, although in some Spanish provinces it can become relevant. The correlation between mobility and growth rate is maximal at a time delay of 2-3 weeks, which agrees well with the expected 5?10 day delays between infection, development of symptoms, and the detection/report of the case.

The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In times of crises, public health leaders may claim that trials of public health interventions are unethical. One reason for this claim can be that equipoise-i.e. a situation of uncertainty and/or disagreement among experts about the evidence regarding an intervention-has been disturbed by a change of collective expert views. Some might claim that equipoise is disturbed if the majority of experts believe that emergency public health interventions are likely to be more beneficial than harmful. However, such beliefs are not always justified: where high quality research has not been conducted, there is often considerable residual uncertainty about whether interventions offer net benefits. In this essay we argue that high-quality research, namely by means of well-designed randomized trials, is ethically obligatory before, during, and after implementing policies in public health emergencies (PHEs). We contend that this standard applies to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and we elaborate an account of equipoise that captures key features of debates in the recent pandemic. We build our case by analyzing research strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding drugs, vaccines, and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and by providing responses to possible objections. Finally, we propose a public health policy reform: whenever a policy implemented during a PHE is not grounded in high-quality evidence that expected benefits outweigh harms, there should be a planned approach to generate high-quality evidence, with review of emerging data at preset time points. These preset timepoints guarantee that policymakers pause to review emerging evidence and consider ceasing ineffective or even harmful policies, thereby improving transparency and accountability, as well as permitting the redirection of resources to more effective or beneficial interventions.

Reduction of acute respiratory infections in day-care by non-pharmaceutical interventions: a narrative review

Objective

Children who start in day-care have 2-4 times as many respiratory infections compared to children who are cared for at home, and day-care staff are among the employees with the highest absenteeism. The extensive new knowledge that has been generated in the COVID-19 era should be used in the prevention measures we prioritize. The purpose of this narrative review is to answer the questions: Which respiratory viruses are the most significant in day-care centers and similar indoor environments? What do we know about the transmission route of these viruses? What evidence is there for the effectiveness of different non-pharmaceutical prevention measures?

Design

Literature searches with different terms related to respiratory infections in humans, mitigation strategies, viral transmission mechanisms, and with special focus on day-care, kindergarten or child nurseries, were conducted in PubMed database and Web of Science. Searches with each of the main viruses in combination with transmission, infectivity, and infectious spread were conducted separately supplemented through the references of articles that were retrieved.

Results

Five viruses were found to be responsible for ≈95% of respiratory infections: rhinovirus, (RV), influenza virus (IV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), coronavirus (CoV), and adenovirus (AdV). Novel research, emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that most respiratory viruses are primarily transmitted in an airborne manner carried by aerosols (microdroplets).

Conclusion

Since airborne transmission is dominant for the most common respiratory viruses, the most important preventive measures consist of better indoor air quality that reduces viral concentrations and viability by appropriate ventilation strategies. Furthermore, control of the relative humidity and temperature, which ensures optimal respiratory functionality and, together with low resident density (or mask use) and increased time outdoors, can reduce the occurrence of respiratory infections.

Quantified impacts of non-pharmaceutical interventions on influenza circulation during the COVID-19 pandemic in 13 African countries, 2020-2022

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for SARS-CoV-2 disrupted circulation of influenza. We used data from 13 African countries and generalized linear models to identify associations between levels of NPIs, using the Oxford Stringency Index, and seasonal influenza activity, using parameters derived from 2020-2022 seasonal influenza surveillance. We found that for each step increase in school closings, the average percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza across the influenza season dropped by 20% (95% CI: 1-38%); no other NPI was significant. These findings may inform interventions to slow influenza circulation in pandemics and possibly during seasonal epidemics.

Interrogating the lack of diversity of thought in the pandemic response that led to mistakes - holistic evidence-based approach to deal with future pandemics

The COVID-19 pandemic, triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rapidly became a worldwide emergency. How it was managed garnered both commendation and vehement censure. This crisis profoundly affected healthcare, the economy, education, and public confidence in scientific endeavors. Our primary aim was to scrutinize the shortcomings in the pandemic management and to articulate a more effective strategy for handling prospective pandemics. We delved into the errors encountered in the COVID-19 response and posited a holistic, evidence-grounded approach for future pandemic mitigation.

Antiviral functionalization of cellulose using tannic acid and tannin-rich extracts

Due to seasonally appearing viruses and several outbreaks and present pandemic, we are surrounded by viruses in our everyday life. In order to reduce viral transmission, functionalized surfaces that inactivate viruses are in large demand. Here the endeavor was to functionalize cellulose-based materials with tannic acid (TA) and tannin-rich extracts by using different binding polymers to prevent viral infectivity of both non-enveloped coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3) and enveloped human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43). Direct antiviral efficacy of TA and spruce bark extract in solution was measured: EC50 for CVB3 was 0.12 and 8.41 μg/ml and for HCoV-OC43, 78.16 and 95.49 μg/ml, respectively. TA also led to an excellent 5.8- to 7-log reduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus infectivity. TA functionalized materials reduced infectivity already after 5-min treatment at room temperature. All the tested methods to bind TA showed efficacy on paperboard with 0.1 to 1% (w/v) TA concentrations against CVB3 whereas material hydrophobicity decreased activities. Specific signatures for TA and HCoV-OC43 were discovered by Raman spectroscopy and showed clear co-localization on the material. qPCR study suggested efficient binding of CVB3 to the TA functionalized cellulose whereas HCoV-OC43 was flushed out from the surfaces more readily. In conclusion, the produced TA-materials showed efficient and broadly acting antiviral efficacy. Additionally, the co-localization of TA and HCoV-OC43 and strong binding of CVB3 to the functionalized cellulose demonstrates an interaction with the surfaces. The produced antiviral surfaces thus show promise for future use to increase biosafety and biosecurity by reducing pathogen persistence.

'Smart' BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic-a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Rapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy 'smart' wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT's technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT's feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT.

METHODS

This mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention.

RESULTS

Thirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT's lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home's varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables' potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes' unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.

Hospital return-to-work practices for healthcare providers infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

A survey of academic medical-center hospital epidemiologists indicated substantial deviation from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance regarding healthcare providers (HCPs) recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) returning to work. Many hospitals continue to operate under contingency status and have HCPs return to work earlier than recommended.

Does equipoise exist for masking children for COVID-19?

Clinical equipoise is characterized by genuine uncertainty within the medical community about the effectiveness of a medical intervention. Its existence is often deemed necessary for clinical trials and signals a need for higher quality evidence, most often with randomized controlled trials, before the intervention can be considered effective. A leading official of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director, when testifying before Congress in February of 2023, indicated there was no need for randomized controlled trials of masking because, owing to overwhelming evidence of benefit, there was no longer equipoise about masking children for COVID-19. We disagree with this statement and outline the reasons why in this piece. We review the concept of clinical equipoise specifically using the example of child masking. We list reasons equipoise still exists for masking children, including a lack of consensus among experts, contradictory medical evidence and recent and ongoing randomized efforts. Finally, we differentiate between clinical equipoise and ethical appropriateness. Despite ongoing equipoise about masking children, we outline why, owing to lack of evidence of net benefit, recommending this intervention does not currently appear to be medically ethical.

The impact of COVID-19 shelter-in-place policy responses on excess mortality

As a way of slowing COVID-19 transmission, many countries and U.S. states implemented shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. However, the effects of SIP policies on public health are a priori ambiguous. Using an event study approach and data from 43 countries and all U.S. states, we measure changes in excess deaths following the implementation of COVID-19 shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. We do not find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier had lower excess deaths. We do not observe differences in excess deaths before and after the implementation of SIP policies, even when accounting for pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.

Commercially Available Mobile Apps With Family Behavioral Goal Setting and Tracking for Parents: Review and Quality Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Goal setting and tracking are well established behavior change techniques. Little is known about the extent to which commercially available mobile apps are designed to guide parents in using these strategies, their evidence base, and their quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review commercially available apps that target parents in relation to setting and tracking behavioral goals for their children. The objectives were to classify the apps' general characteristics, features, evidence base, and target behaviors and assess app quality overall and separately for apps that target health-related behaviors (HRBs) and apps without a health-related behavior (WHRB).

METHODS

Apps were identified using keyword searches in the Apple App Store and Google Play in the United States. Apps were included if their primary purpose was to assist with setting goals, tracking goals, tracking behaviors, or giving feedback pertaining to goals for children by parents. App characteristics and common features were documented and summarized. Two reviewers assessed app quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Descriptive statistics summarized the MARS total score, 4 quality subscales, and 6 app-specific items that reflect the perceived impact of the app on goal setting and tracking, overall and with subgroup analysis for HRB and WHRB apps.

RESULTS

Of the 21 apps identified, 16 (76%) met the review criteria. Overall, 9 apps defined and targeted the following HRBs: nutrition and mealtime (6/16, 38%), physical activity and screen time (5/16, 31%), sleep (7/16, 44%), and personal hygiene (6/16, 38%). Three apps targeted specific age groups (2 apps were for children aged 6-13 years and 1 app was for children aged ≥4 years). None of the apps provided tailored assessments or guidance for goal setting. None of the apps indicated that they were intended for the involvement of a health professional or had been tested for efficacy. The MARS total score indicated moderate app quality overall (mean 3.42, SD 0.49) and ranged from 2.5 to 4.2 out of 5 points. The Habitz app ranked highest on the MARS total score among HRB apps (score=4.2), whereas Thumsters ranked highest (score=3.9) among the WHRB apps. Subgroup analysis revealed a pattern of higher quality ratings in the HRB group than the WHRB group, including the mean MARS total score (mean 3.67, SD 0.34 vs mean 3.09, SD 0.46; P=.02); the engagement and information subscales; and the app-specific items about perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior change.

CONCLUSIONS

Several high-quality commercially available apps target parents to facilitate goal setting and tracking for child behavior change related to both health and nonhealth behaviors. However, the apps lack evidence of efficacy. Future research should address this gap, particularly targeting parents of young children, and consider individually tailored guided goal setting and involvement of health professionals.

Seroprevalence, infection, and personal protective equipment use among Colombian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of the COVID-19 response and frequently come into close contact with patients and their virus-contaminated body fluids. Recent studies have identified differential risks of infection and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among HCWs. However, available data might be interpreted with caution because of differences in the national health systems, local implementation issues, and adherence limitations to guidelines. A comprehensive description of infection, exposure at work, and biosafety habits during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been conducted among the HCW groups in Latin American populations.

Objective

To describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, infections, and extent of PPE use during the COVID-19 pandemic among HCWs at three different times, including dental practitioners (DP), nursing assistants (NA), physicians (P), and respiratory therapists (RT), from Bogotá, Colombia. Methods: After IRB approval, this cross-sectional study included 307 HCWs. Participants provided nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples to detect viral RNA (RT-qPCR) and IgM/IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 (ELFA-ELISA) at baseline (BL) and two follow-ups. Infection prevalence was defined as the number of positive-tested participants (RT-qPCR and/or IgM). Data on clinical status and biosafety habits were collected each time.

Results

Differential infection prevalence was found among HCWs through the study timeline (BL: RT-qPCR = 2.6%, IgM = 1.6%; follow-up 1 (45 days after BL): RT-qPCR = 4.5%, IgM = 3.9%; follow-up 2 (60 days after BL): RT-qPCR = 3.58%, IgM = 1.3%. Dental practitioners showed a higher infection frequency in BL and follow-up 1. IgG-positive tested HCWs percentage progressively increased from BL to follow-ups among the whole sample while index values decreased. Limitations in N95 availability and a high perception of occupational risk were reported.

Conclusion

A low prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs groups was found. Over time, there was an increase in participants showing IgG antibodies, although the levels of these antibodies in the blood decreased. Additionally, HCWs reported limitations in the availability of PPE as well as a variation in their safety practices.

The response to COVID-19 in Timor-Leste: lessons learnt

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Timor-Leste offers lessons that may be useful for incorporating into future responses to infectious disease outbreaks in similar resource-limited settings. In this paper, we identify nine key areas for learning from Timor-Leste's experience of the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) the importance of prior preparation for health emergencies, (2) the establishment of effective leadership and governance structures, (3) the protective impact of early border restrictions, (4) the rapid expansion of diagnostic laboratory capacity, (5) the impact of effective health communications in supporting the vaccine roll-out, (6) the opportunity to build capacity for clinical care, (7) the use of public health interventions that were found to have limited public health impact, (8) the broader effects of the pandemic and the public health response and (9) translation of lessons from COVID-19 to other public health priorities.

Advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the mandatory use of masks in health centers and nursing homes in Spain. How and when is it justified to maintain it?

We address the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the mandatory use of masks in health centers and nursing homes in the current epidemiological situation in Spain and after the declaration of the World Health Organization on May 5, 2023 of the end of COVID-19 as public health emergency. We advocate for prudence and flexibility, respecting the individual decision to wear a mask and emphasizing the need for its use when symptoms suggestive of a respiratory infection appear, in situations of special vulnerability (such as immunosuppression), or when caring for patients with those infections. At present, given the observed low risk of severe COVID-19 and the low transmission of other respiratory infections, we believe that it is disproportionate to maintain the mandatory use of masks in a general way in health centers and nursing homes. However, this could change depending on the results of epidemiological surveillance and it would be necessary to reconsider returning to the obligation in periods with a high incidence of respiratory infections.

COVID-19

COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, became a worldwide pandemic in 2020. Initial clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic infection to mild upper respiratory illness but may progress to pulmonary involvement with hypoxemia and, in some cases, multiorgan involvement, shock, and death. Older adults, pregnant persons, those with common comorbidities, and those with immunosuppression are at greatest risk for progression. Vaccination is effective in preventing symptomatic infection and reducing risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Antiviral treatment and immunomodulators have been shown to benefit certain patients. This article summarizes current recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of COVID-19.

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

Revisiting the personal protective equipment components of transmission-based precautions for the prevention of COVID-19 and other respiratory virus infections in healthcare

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some potential limitations of transmission-based precautions. The distinction between transmission through large droplets vs aerosols, which have been fundamental concepts guiding infection control measures, has been questioned, leading to considerable variation in expert recommendations on transmission-based precautions for COVID-19. Furthermore, the application of elements of contact precautions, such as the use of gloves and gowns, is based on low-quality and inconclusive evidence and may have unintended consequences, such as increased incidence of healthcare-associated infections and spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. These observations indicate a need for high-quality studies to address the knowledge gaps and a need to revisit the theoretical background regarding various modes of transmission and the definitions of terms related to transmission. Further, we should examine the implications these definitions have on the following components of transmission-based precautions: (i) respiratory protection, (ii) use of gloves and gowns for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, (iii) aerosol-generating procedures and (iv) universal masking in healthcare settings as a control measure especially during seasonal epidemics. Such a review would ensure that transmission-based precautions are consistent and rationally based on available evidence, which would facilitate decision-making, guidance development and training, as well as their application in practice.

Policies on children and schools during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Western Europe

During the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), mitigation policies for children have been a topic of considerable uncertainty and debate. Although some children have co-morbidities which increase their risk for severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome and long COVID, most children only get mild COVID-19. On the other hand, consistent evidence shows that mass mitigation measures had enormous adverse impacts on children. A central question can thus be posed: What amount of mitigation should children bear, in response to a disease that is disproportionally affecting older people? In this review, we analyze the distinct child versus adult epidemiology, policies, mitigation trade-offs and outcomes in children in Western Europe. The highly heterogenous European policies applied to children compared to adults did not lead to significant measurable differences in outcomes. Remarkably, the relative epidemiological importance of transmission from school-age children to other age groups remains uncertain, with current evidence suggesting that schools often follow, rather than lead, community transmission. Important learning points for future pandemics are summarized.

The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden was among the few countries that did not enforce strict lockdown measures but instead relied more on voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations. While supported by the majority of Swedes, this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism. Unfortunately, the respectful debate centered around scientific evidence often gave way to mudslinging. However, the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020-2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks.

Cooperation in the Time of COVID

Humans evolved to be hyper-cooperative, particularly when among people who are well known to them, when relationships involve reciprocal helping opportunities, and when the costs to the helper are substantially less than the benefits to the recipient. Because humans' cooperative nature evolved over many millennia when they lived exclusively in small groups, factors that cause cooperation to break down tend to be those associated with life in large, impersonal, modern societies: when people are not identifiable, when interactions are one-off, when self-interest is not tied to the interests of others, and when people are concerned that others might free ride. From this perspective, it becomes clear that policies for managing pandemics will be most effective when they highlight superordinate goals and connect people or institutions to one another over multiple identifiable interactions. When forging such connections is not possible, policies should mimic critical components of ancestral conditions by providing reputational markers for cooperators and reducing the systemic damage caused by free riding. In this article, we review policies implemented during the pandemic, highlighting spontaneous community efforts that leveraged these aspects of people's evolved psychology, and consider implications for future decision makers.

Major Update: Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Optimal use of masks for preventing COVID-19 is unclear.

PURPOSE

To update an evidence synthesis on N95, surgical, and cloth mask effectiveness in community and health care settings for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, medRxiv (3 June 2022 to 2 January 2023), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of interventions to increase mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and observational studies of mask use that controlled for potential confounders.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially abstracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three randomized trials and 21 observational studies were included. In community settings, mask use may be associated with a small reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus no mask use, on the basis of 2 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. In routine patient care settings, surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the basis of 1 new randomized trial with some imprecision and 4 observational studies. Evidence from observational studies was insufficient to evaluate other mask comparisons due to methodological limitations and inconsistency.

LIMITATION

Few randomized trials, studies had methodological limitations and some imprecision, suboptimal adherence and pragmatic aspects of randomized trials potentially attenuated benefits, very limited evidence on harms, uncertain applicability to Omicron variant predominant era, meta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity, unable to formally assess for publication bias, and restricted to English-language articles.

CONCLUSION

Updated evidence suggests that masks may be associated with a small reduction in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings. Surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar infection risk in routine patient care settings, but a beneficial effect of N95 respirators cannot be ruled out.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Importance

Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated.

Objective

To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term.

Results

The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p &lt; 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p &lt; 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p &lt; 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p &lt; 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p &lt; 0.006 to p &lt; 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p &lt; 0.001), acne (38%, p &lt; 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p &lt; 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p &lt; 0.001), heat (26%, p &lt; 0.001), itching (26%, p &lt; 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p &lt; 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents - A scoping review

Introduction

During the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic, face masks have become one of the most important ubiquitous factors affecting human breathing. It increases the resistance and dead space volume leading to a re-breathing of CO2. So far, this phenomenon and possible implications on early life has not been evaluated in depth.

Method

As part of a scoping review, literature was systematically reviewed regarding CO2 exposure and facemask use.

Results

Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2, while wearing masks more than 5 min bears a possible chronic exposure to carbon dioxide of 1.41% to 3.2% of the inhaled air. Although the buildup is usually within the short-term exposure limits, long-term exceedances and consequences must be considered due to experimental data. US Navy toxicity experts set the exposure limits for submarines carrying a female crew to 0.8% CO2 based on animal studies which indicated an increased risk for stillbirths. Additionally, mammals who were chronically exposed to 0.3% CO2 the experimental data demonstrate a teratogenicity with irreversible neuron damage in the offspring, reduced spatial learning caused by brainstem neuron apoptosis and reduced circulating levels of the insulin-like growth factor-1. With significant impact on three readout parameters (morphological, functional, marker) this chronic 0.3% CO2 exposure has to be defined as being toxic. Additional data exists on the exposure of chronic 0.3% CO2 in adolescent mammals causing neuron destruction, which includes less activity, increased anxiety and impaired learning and memory. There is also data indicating testicular toxicity in adolescents at CO2 inhalation concentrations above 0.5%.

Discussion

There is a possible negative impact risk by imposing extended mask mandates especially for vulnerable subgroups. Circumstantial evidence exists that extended mask use may be related to current observations of stillbirths and to reduced verbal motor and overall cognitive performance in children born during the pandemic. A need exists to reconsider mask mandates.