BACKGROUND: We aimed to review the evidence from studies relating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) culture with the results of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and other variables that may influence the interpretation of the test, such as time from symptom onset. METHODS: We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and the World Health Organization coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) database for COVID-19 up to 10 September 2020. We included studies attempting to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 in specimens with RT-PCR positivity. Studies were dual-extracted and the data summarized narratively by specimen type. Where necessary, we contacted corresponding authors of included papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2) risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We included 29 studies reporting attempts at culturing, or observing tissue infection by, SARS-CoV-2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal, urine, stool, blood, and environmental specimens. The quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardized reporting. The data suggest a relationship between the time from onset of symptom to the timing of the specimen test, cycle threshold (Ct), and symptom severity. Twelve studies reported that Ct values were significantly lower and log copies higher in specimens producing live virus culture. Two studies reported that the odds of live virus culture were reduced by approximately 33% for every 1-unit increase in Ct. Six of 8 studies reported detectable RNA for >14 days, but infectious potential declined after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. Four studies reported viral culture from stool specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs, and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high Ct are unlikely to have infectious potential.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground. In Italy many diabetics still lack adequate care in general practice. We assessed the effectiveness of different strategies for the implementation of an evidence-based guideline for the management of non-complicated type 2 diabetes among General Practitioners (GPs) of Lazio region. Methods. Three-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with GPs as units of randomisation (clusters). 252 GPs were randomised either to an active strategy (training module with administration of the guideline), or to a passive dissemination (administration of the guideline only), or to usual care (control). Data on prescriptions of tests and drugs were collected by existing information systems, whereas patients' data came from GPs' databases. Process outcomes were measured at the cluster level one year after the intervention. Primary outcomes concerned the measurement of glycosilated haemoglobin and the commissioning of micro- and macrovascular complications assessment tests. In order to assess the physicians' drug prescribing behaviour secondary outcomes were also calculated. Results. GPs identified 6395 uncomplicated type 2 patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Data on GPs baseline performance show low proportions of glycosilated haemoglobin assessments. Results of the C-RCT analysis indicate that the active implementation strategy was ineffective relating to all primary outcomes (respectively, OR 1.06 [95% IC: 0.76-1.46]; OR 1.07 [95% IC: 0.80-1.43]; OR 1.4 [95% IC:0.91-2.16]. Similarly, passive dissemination of the guideline showed no effect. Conclusion. In our region compliance of GPs with guidelines was not enhanced by a structured learning programme. Implementation through organizational measures appears to be essential to induce behavioural changes. Trial registration. ISRCTN80116232. \u00a9 2007 Perria et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. Objectives: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. Main results: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I2 statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir \"pivotal\" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I2 = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). Authors' conclusions: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Injected cholera vaccines are rarely used today, although they may have some benefit. It is valuable to summarize the evidence for effectiveness of injected cholera vaccines for comparison with newer oral vaccines (subject of a separate Cochrane Review). Objectives: To evaluate killed whole cell (KWC) cholera vaccines and other inactive subunit vaccines (administered by injection) for preventing cholera and death, and to evaluate the adverse effects. Search methods: In September 2008, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), EMBASE, and LILACS. We also searched reference lists and handsearched the journal Vaccine up to 1997. Selection criteria: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing injected cholera vaccines (KWC or other inactive subunit) with placebo, control vaccines, or no intervention in adults and children irrespective of immune status or special risk category. Data collection and analysis: Two authors extracted data and assessed trial methodological quality independently. Dichotomous data were reported using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Vaccine efficacies were also calculated (% vaccine efficacy = (1-RR) x 100%). Main results: Sixteen trials, involving over one million adults, children and infants, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-four comparisons reported on vaccine efficacy (cholera cases and/or deaths) and 11 comparisons considered adverse effects (nine reported on both). Compared to placebo, vaccinees had a reduced risk of death from cholera (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 837,442 participants) and a reduced risk of contracting cholera at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.65, random-effects model; 1,512,573 participants). This translates to an efficacy of 48%, 95% confidence interval 35% to 58%. Significant protection lasted for two years, even after only a single dose, and for three years with an annual booster. Children over five years and adults were protected for up to three years, while children under five years were protected for up to a year. Injected cholera vaccines were associated with more systemic and local adverse effects compared to placebo, but these were not severe or life-threatening. Authors' conclusions: Injected cholera vaccines appear to be safe and relatively more effective than usually realized. Protection against cholera persists for up to two years following a single dose of vaccine, and for three years with an annual booster. However, they have been superseded by oral vaccines. 23 April 2019. No update planned. Other. This is not a current question.
\n \n\n \n \nHepatitis B virus (HBV) is a virus that infects about 350,000,000 people worldwide with a clinical spectrum of acute hepatitis, the healthy carrier state, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The outcome of HBV infection is the result of complicated viral-host interactions. As in other infections with non-cythopatic viruses, the immune response is thought to play a crucial role in disease pathogenesis but there is increasing evidence that a variety of viral mechanisms, some depending on the function of virally encoded proteins, have a profound impact on the infected hepatocytes, the liver microenvironment, and host anti-viral responses. Indeed, the virus has evolved multiple mechanisms to ensure its success in infecting a susceptible host. The essential aspects of the life cycle of HBV and the host immune response are reviewed and recent new developments in the molecular virology of HBV, including experimental animal models, in the role of accessory viral proteins in disease pathogenesis and HCC development and in the characterisation of the T cell response in the control of HBV infection, are highlighted. \u00a9 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
\n \n\n \n \nAdaptations to the recognized methods of systematic reviewing are required when addressing questions about safety, particularly about rare and/or long-term serious adverse events. Conducting a systematic review of vaccine safety requires the implementation of novel strategies for locating studies, the use of experimental instruments to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, and the employment of pooling methods for non-randomized data, where appropriate. Standardizing both the indexing of adverse event data on electronic libraries and their reporting would improve the potential of systematic reviews of vaccine to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of a vaccine. \u00a9 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Healthcare workers' (HCWs) influenza rates are unknown, but may be similar to the general public and they may transmit influenza to patients. Objectives: To identify studies of vaccinating HCWs and the incidence of influenza, its complications and influenza-like illness (ILI) in individuals \u2265 60 in longterm care facilities (LTCFs). Search strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2009), EMBASE (1974 to 2009) and Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index-Expanded. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of HCWs caring for individuals \u2265 60 in LTCFs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications or ILI. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Main results: We identified four cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs) (n = 7558) and one cohort (n = 12742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals \u2265 60 in LTCFs. Pooled data from three C-RCTs showed no effect on specific outcomes: laboratoryproven influenza, pneumonia or deaths from pneumonia. For non-specific outcomes pooled data from three C-RCTs showed HCW vaccination reduced ILI; data from one C-RCT that HCW vaccination reduced GP consultations for ILI; and pooled data from three C-RCTs showed reduced all-cause mortality in individuals \u2265 60. Authors' conclusions: No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia. An effect was shown for the non-specific outcomes of ILI, GP consultations for ILI and all-cause mortality in individuals \u2265 60. These non-specific outcomes are difficult to interpret because ILI includes many pathogens, and winter influenza contributes < 10% to all-cause mortality in individuals \u2265 60. The key interest is preventing laboratory-proven influenza in individuals \u2265 60, pneumonia and deaths from pneumonia, and we cannot draw such conclusions. The identified studies are at high risk of bias. Some HCWs remain unvaccinated because they do not perceive risk, doubt vaccine efficacy and are concerned about side effects. This review did not find information on co-interventions with HCW vaccination: hand washing, face masks, early detection of laboratoryproven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, anti-virals, and asking HCWs with ILI not to work. We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs. High quality RCTs are required to avoid risks of bias in methodology and conduct, and to test these interventions in combination. \u00a9 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. Objectives: To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009). Selection criteria: We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies. Data collection and analysis: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias. Main results: The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses exposure. Authors' conclusions: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic. \u00a9 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread. Objectives: To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Search methods: We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010). Selection criteria: In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials\u00a0(RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies. Data collection and analysis: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias. Main results: We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure. Authors' conclusions: Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.
\n \n\n \n \n