[WHO Guidelines on Tuberculosis Infection Prevention and Control]. / WHO-Leitlinie: Prävention und Kontrolle von Tuberkulose-Infektionen.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable progress in the fight against tuberculosis, it is still the most deadly bacterial infectious disease worldwide. Every year, up to 10 million people worldwide still die of tuberculosis. The World Health Assembly has set itself the goal of reducing the number of tuberculosis deaths by 90% and the number of new infections by 80% by 2030. Prevention and infection control measures in public health facilities and wherever the risk of transmission of the tuberculosis bacterium "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" is high are especially important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the guideline is to provide updated and evidence-based recommendations for public health measures to prevent the spread of the tuberculosis bacterium in clinical settings and in tuberculosis management. METHODOLOGY: The World Health Organization (WHO) developed these recommendations according to the methods outlined in the WHO handbook for guideline development. This publication is a summary of the most important aspects of this guideline translated into German by members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: This guideline takes into account the current evidence base and provides recommendations and comments on the implementation of tuberculosis prevention and control measures at the level of health care institutions and at the national level.

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease that has been classified a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a rapid review to assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high transmission of the disease. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 12 February 2020 and updated the search on 12 March 2020. WHO provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases up to 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control-studies, case series, time series, interrupted time series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened 30% of records; a single review author screened the remaining 70%. Two review authors screened all potentially relevant full-text publications independently. One review author extracted data and assessed evidence quality with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and resource use. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies; 10 modelling studies on COVID-19, four observational studies and 15 modelling studies on SARS and MERS. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis. Due to the type of evidence found for this review, GRADE rates the certainty of the evidence as low to very low. Modeling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases averted 44% to 81% incident cases and 31% to 63% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings (2 modelling studies on SARS). Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths was small (2 modelling studies on SARS). When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, including school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than individual measures alone (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence for COVID-19 is limited to modelling studies that make parameter assumptions based on the current, fragmented knowledge. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak situation and the impact of the measures implemented. Testing in representative samples in different settings could help assess the true prevalence of infection, and would reduce uncertainty of modelling assumptions. This review was commissioned by WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems.

[Communicating Risk in Public Health Emergencies: A WHO Guideline for Emergency Risk Communication (Erc) Policy and Practice]. / Risikokommunikation in gesundheitsbedrohlichen Krisensituationen: Zusammenfassung einer WHO-Leitlinie.

BACKGROUND: Risk communication in public health emergencies is an essential part of any emergency response. AIM: The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to provide WHO Member States, partners and stakeholders involved in emergency preparedness and response structures evidence-based, up-to-date, system-focused guidance. METHODS: Guideline development followed WHO standards. RESULTS: These guidelines give recommendations in the following areas: (1) approaches for building trust and engaging with communities and affected populations, (2) approaches for integrating risk communication into existing national and local emergency preparedness and response-structures, and (3) planning, conducting, and evaluating emergency risk communication in practice. CONCLUSION: Specific step-by-step instructions are beyond the remit of these recommendations. These will be provided by WHO in other formats in the future.

[Comparative effectiveness and safety of screening and counselling interventions conducted by non-physicians and physicians: a systematic review]. / Vergleichende Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Screeninguntersuchungen und Beratungsgesprächen durch nicht-ärztliches und ärztliches Personal. Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: Current forecasts project a future shortage of physicians which might compromise the quality of health care if not addressed adequately by health policy decisions. One proposed measure is to shift selected tasks and responsibilities from physicians to other medical staff, a strategy that has proven successful in some areas (e. g., chronic disease management). To date, no studies have systematically and objectively assessed whether the application of a similar strategy to screening and counselling in preventive medicine compromises patients' health outcomes and experiences. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE (January 2000 - June 2014). We dually reviewed articles and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: 3,315 citations were identified and five relevant articles located. Overall, the available evidence indicated that there were no substantial differences in benefits and harms of screening (colon cancer screening, sexual transmitted diseases, and mammography) and counselling (genetic breast cancer risk) between non-physicians and physicians. The quality of evidence, however, is very low for most comparisons. Reported statistically significant differences for some outcomes need to be viewed cautiously. CONCLUSION: Shifting tasks from physicians to other medical staff for screening and counselling could be a viable strategy to address the shortage of practicing physicians. Adequate training by a physician, however, is a prerequisite for the safe and beneficial screening and counselling conducted by non-physicians.