Attending sporting mega events during COVID-19: mitigation and messaging at UK EURO 2020 matches.

The UEFA EURO 2020 football tournament was one of the largest Sporting Mega Events (SMEs) to take place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mitigating the risk of virus transmission requires a multi-layered approach for any large event, more so in this case due to staging the tournament across eleven host countries. Yet, little is known about COVID-19 risks and mitigation from attending an event of this scale and nature. We examined the implementation of mitigation and messaging at EURO 2020 matches hosted at venues in the UK. The tournament was postponed from the summer of 2020 and played in June and July of 2021. Structured observations were conducted by 11 trained fieldwork-supporters at 10 matches played at Wembley Stadium, London, or Hampden Park, Glasgow. Fieldwork-supporters observed one-way systems and signage, and hand sanitizing stations inside the stadia, but reported significant variation in the implementation of staggered timeslots, testing upon entry, and procedures for exit. Adherence to planned measures by ticket holders and implementation by stewards waned as the tournament progressed culminating in an absence of enforced measures at the final. The non-compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures was likely to have led to a significantly increased risk of transmission. Future events should consider how COVID-19 mitigation measures could become 'new norms' of fan behaviour, learning from what is already known about football fandom. Tournament organizers of SMEs can use these findings to promote clearer messaging on pandemic-driven changes in fan behaviour and best practices in mitigating risk at future sporting and cultural events.

The UEFA EURO 2020 football tournament saw one of the largest returns to spectating at sporting events during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the tournament taking place across 11 different countries, several measures (e.g. mask-wearing and social distancing) were put in place to protect ticket holders from spreading and catching COVID-19, and these were communicated to spectators before and during matches. This study considers how these measures were implemented at EURO 2020 matches hosted in the UK. Despite retaining the name 'EURO 2020', the tournament was postponed from the summer of 2020 and played in June and July of 2021. We recruited and trained 11 ticket holders who became observers at 10 matches played at Wembley Stadium, London, or Hampden Park, Glasgow. The results demonstrate that supporting normally at football matches during the pandemic times increased the risk of virus transmission. There were inconsistencies in how mitigation measures were planned and implemented by tournament organizers. Ticket holders were also less compliant with mitigation measures as the tournament progressed, likely made more difficult with relaxations in government restrictions. To limit virus transmission at future sporting and cultural events, messaging on mitigation measures must be clear, consistent and implemented as planned.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Self-management interventions for adults living with obesity to improve patient-relevant outcomes: An evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported. CONCLUSION: There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations.