Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: : We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February to 20 December 2020 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: : We included 67 primary studies and 22 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 67 primary studies, 53 (79%) reported data on RT-PCR from air samples, 12 (18%) report cycle threshold values and 18 (127%) copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational and of low quality. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 36 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 42 studies conducted in-hospital that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 24 (57%) reported positive results for SARs-CoV-2 (142 positives out of 1,403 samples: average 10.1%, range 0% to 100%). There was no pattern between the type of hospital setting (ICU versus non-ICU) and RT-PCR positivity. Seventeen studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community, of which seven performed RT-PCR sampling, and two studies reported weak positive RNA samples for 2 or more genes (5 of 125 samples positive: average 4.0%). Ten studies attempted viral culture with no serial passage. Conclusion: \u00a0SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions from being drawn about airborne transmission.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.\u00a0 Methods: : This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: : We included 181 studies: 171 primary studies and 10 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (31.6%) and acute care hospitals (15.2%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low to moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) was 3.5-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if index cases had recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in three studies of which two found viable virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Ten studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis \u2013 the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 81-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: : The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed to improve the quality reporting.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Background and aims: Liver cirrhosis severely decreases patients' quality of life. Since self-management programmes have improved quality of life and reduce hospital admissions in other chronic diseases, they have been suggested to decrease liver cirrhosis burden. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical impact of self-management programmes in patients with liver cirrhosis, which followed the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Primary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and hospitalisation. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trial registers to July 2017. Results: We identified four randomised trials (299 patients) all rated at a high risk of bias. No difference was demonstrated for HRQOL (standardised mean difference \u22120.01, 95% CI: \u22120.48 to 0.46) and hospitalisation days (incidence rate ratio 1.6, 95% CI: 0.5\u20134.8). For secondary outcomes, one study found a statistically significant improvement in patient knowledge (mean difference (MD) 3.68, 95% CI: 2.11\u20135.25) while another study found an increase in model for end-stage liver disease scores (MD 2.8, 95% CI: 0.6\u20134.9) in the self-management group. No statistical difference was found for the other secondary outcomes (self-efficacy, psychological health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, mortality). Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The content of self-management programmes varied across studies with little overlap. Conclusions: The current literature indicates that there is no evidence of a benefit of self-management programmes for people with cirrhosis. Relevance to clinical practice: Practitioners should use self-management programmes with caution when delivering care to patients living with cirrhosis. Further research is required to determine what are the key features in a complex intervention like self-management. This review offers a preliminary framework for clinicians to develop a new self-management programme with key features of effective self-management interventions from established models.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The cells of the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS) constitute a dispersed organ, which is distributed throughout the body. Macrophages in different tissues display distinctive mosaic phenotypes as resident and recruited cells of embryonic and bone marrow origin, respectively. They help to maintain homeostasis during development and throughout adult life, yet contribute to the pathogenesis of many disease processes, including inflammation, innate and adaptive immunity, metabolic disorders, and cancer. Heterogeneous tissue macrophage populations display a wide variety of surface molecules to recognise and respond to host, microbial, and exogenous ligands in their environment; their receptors mediate the uptake and destruction of effete and dying host cells and pathogens, as well as contribute trophic and secretory functions within every organ in the body. Apart from local cellular interactions, macrophage surface molecules and products serve to mobilise and coordinate systemic humoral and cellular responses. Their use as antigen markers in pathogenesis and as potential drug targets has lagged in clinical pathology and human immunotherapy. In this review, we summarise the properties of selected surface molecules expressed on macrophages in different tissues and disease processes, to provide a functional basis for diagnosis, further research, and treatment. \u00a9 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
\n \n\n \n \nIntroduction: Survival outcomes of children with relapsed/refractory (r/r) acute leukemia remain poor. Novel expensive treatments have been developed to improve their outcomes, yet, limited evidence exists about cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies. Areas covered: A systematic review was conducted to summarize health-economic evidence about costs/cost-effectiveness of treating r/r acute leukemia in children/young adults. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases until August 13th, 2021. Eligible articles included peer-reviewed original studies addressing r/r pediatric/young-adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Quality assessment was conducted using Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Expert Opinion: The majority of papers focused on CAR-T cell therapy, which is still a novel treatment for r/r ALL, and was found to be cost-effective, yet, there remain concerns over its long-term effectiveness, affordability, and equity in access. The next best treatment option is Blinatumomab, followed by Clofarabine therapy, whereas FLA-IDA salvage chemotherapy provides least value for money. The quality of evidence is moderate to high, with limited generalizability of findings due to high variability in outcomes obtained from modeling studies. Limited studies evaluated r/r AML. We provide recommendations to deliver cost-effective treatments in real-world contexts, with implications for healthcare policy and practice.
\n \n\n \n \nObjectivesAbout 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these are likely to be truly allergic. In the ALABAMA (Allergy Antibiotics and Microbial resistance) feasibility trial, primary care patients with penicillin allergy were randomised to penicillin allergy assessment pathway or usual care to assess the effect on health outcomes. A behavioural intervention package was developed to aid delabelling. This study aimed to investigate patients\u2019 and clinicians\u2019 views of penicillin allergy testing (PAT).DesignWe conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within the ALABAMA trial, which included a clinician survey, a patient survey (at baseline and follow-up) and semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians.SettingsThe study was conducted in primary care, as part of the feasibility stage of the ALABAMA trial.ParticipantsPatients and primary care clinicians.ResultsClinicians (N=53; 52.2%) were positive about PAT and its potential value but did not have previous experience of referring patients for a PAT and were unsure whether patients would take penicillin after a negative allergy test. Patients (N=36; 46%) were unsure whether they were severely allergic to penicillin and did not fear a severe allergic reaction to penicillin. Clinician interviews showed that they were already aware of the benefit of PAT. Interviews with patients suggested the importance of safety as patients valued having numerous opportunities to address their concerns about safety of the test.ConclusionsThis study highlights the positive effects of the ALABAMA behavioural intervention for both patients and clinicians.Trial registration numberNCT04108637; ISRCTN20579216; Pre-results.
\n \n\n \n \nObjective To describe the potential benefits and harms of oseltamivir by reviewing all clinical study reports (or similar document when no clinical study report exists) of randomised placebo controlled trials and regulatory comments (\"regulatory information\"). Design Systematic review of regulatory information. Data sources Clinical study reports, trial registries, electronic databases, regulatory archives, and correspondence with manufacturers. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised placebo controlled trials on adults and children who had confirmed or suspected exposure to natural influenza. Main outcome measures Time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, admissions to hospital, and adverse events in the intention to treat population. Results From the European Medicines Agency and Roche, we obtained clinical study reports for 83 trials. We included 23 trials in stage 1 (reliability and completeness screen) and 20 in stage 2 (formal analysis). In treatment trials on adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P<0.001). There was no effect in children with asthma, but there was an effect in otherwise healthy children (mean difference 29 hours, 95% confidence interval 12 to 47 hours, P=0.001). In treatment trials there was no difference in admissions to hospital in adults (risk difference 0.15%, 95% confidence interval -0.91% to 0.78%, P=0.84) and sparse data in children and for prophylaxis. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir reduced investigator mediated unverified pneumonia (risk difference 1.00%, 0.22% to 1.49%; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 100, 95% confidence interval 67 to 451). The effect was not statistically significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for \"pneumonia,\" and no clinical study reports reported laboratory or diagnostic confirmation of \"pneumonia.\" The effect on unverified pneumonia in children and for prophylaxis was not significant. There was no significant reduction in risk of unverified bronchitis, otitis media, sinusitis, or any complication classified as serious or that led to study withdrawal. 14 of 20 trials prompted participants to self report all secondary illnesses to an investigator. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (risk difference 3.66%, 0.90% to 7.39%; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 28, 95% confidence interval 14 to 112) and vomiting (4.56%, 2.39% to 7.58%; 22, 14 to 42). In treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (5.34%, 1.75% to 10.29%; 19, 10 to 57). In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir reduced symptomatic influenza in participants by 55% (3.05%, 1.83% to 3.88%; NNTB 33, 26 to 55) and households (13.6%, 9.52% to 15.47%; NNTB 7, 6 to 11) based on one study, but there was no significant effect on.
\n \n\n \n \nObjectives To describe the potential benefits and harms of zanamivir. Design Systematic review of clinical study reports of randomised placebo controlled trials and regulatory information Data sources Clinical study reports, trial registries, electronic databases, regulatory archives, and correspondence with manufacturers. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised placebo controlled trials in adults and children who had confirmed or suspected exposure to natural influenza. Main outcome measures Time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes and complications, admissions to hospital, and adverse events in the intention to treat (ITT) population. Results We included 28 trials in stage 1 (judgment of appropriate study design) and 26 in stage 2 (formal analysis). For treatment of adults, zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms of influenza-like illness by 0.60 days (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.81, P<0.001, I2=9%), which equates to an average 14.4 hours' reduction, or a 10% reduction in mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 days to 6.0 days. Time to first alleviation of symptoms was shorter in all participants when any relief drugs were allowed compared with no use. Zanamivir did not reduce the risk of self reported investigator mediated pneumonia (risk difference 0.17%, -0.73% to 0.70%) or radiologically confirmed pneumonia (-0.06%, -6.56% to 2.11%) in adults. The effect on pneumonia in children was also not significant (0.56%, -1.64% to 1.04%). There was no significant effect on otitis media or sinusitis in both adults and children, with only a small effect noted for bronchitis in adults (1.80%, 0.65% to 2.80%), but not in children. There were no data to assess effects on admissions in adults and children. Zanamivir tended to be well tolerated. In zanamivir prophylaxis studies, symptomatic influenza in individuals was significantly reduced (1.98%, (0.98% to 2.54%); reducing event rates from 3.26% to 1.27%, which means 51 people need to be treated to prevent one influenza case (95% confidence interval, 40 to 103). In contrast, the prophylaxis effect on asymptomatic influenza cases was not significant in individuals (risk difference 0.14%, -1.10% to 1.10%) or in households (1.32%, -2.20% to 3.84%). In households treated prophylactically there was an effect on symptomatic influenza (14.84%, 12.18% to 16.55%), but this was based on only two small studies including 824 participants. Prophylaxis in adults reduced unverified pneumonia (0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB (number needed to treat to benefit) 311, 244 to 1086) but had no effect on pneumonia in children or on bronchitis or sinusitis in adults or children (risk difference 0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB 311, 244 to 1086). Conclusions Based on a full assessment of all trials conducted, zanamivir reduces the time to symptomatic improvement in adults (but.).
\n \n\n \n \n