SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk for common group activities and settings: a living scoping review.

BACKGROUND: While the modes of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are well studied, the risk of transmission in various group settings or activities is less clear. This living scoping review aims to summarize the risk factors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread in common group activities (e.g. social gatherings) or settings (e.g. schools, hospitals, shared workplaces) to understand the drivers of transmission and to inform a risk assessment profile tool for use of rapid antigen detection tests. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases, MEDLINE and Embase, from January 2019 until February 2022. We included studies that evaluated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in activities and settings, deemed strategically important to government departments in Ireland, provided by the Department of Health (Ireland) Expert Advisory Group on Rapid Testing. RESULTS: After screening 14 052 records, data from 139 studies were narratively synthesized. The risk was consistently reported as 'high' for large social events (e.g. weddings) and indoor sports, working in healthcare settings and shared workplaces, working/living in residential settings and travelling via public transportation. Most studies were from healthcare settings, with common risk factors including close contact with COVID-19 cases, working in high-risk departments and inappropriate use of personal protective equipment. For other settings and activities, lack of infection prevention and control practices reportedly contributed to infection transmission. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity across studies and lack of direct information on dominant variants, preventive measures, vaccination coverage necessitates further research on transmission risk within group activities to inform infection prevention and control measures.

Performance of different rapid antigen testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2: A living rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 testing offer several advantages over molecular tests, but there is little evidence supporting an ideal testing algorithm. We aimed to examine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and the effectiveness of different RADT SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. METHODS: Following PRISMA DTA guidance, we carried out a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL electronic databases until February 2022. Results were visualized using forest plots and included in random-effects univariate meta-analyses, where eligible. RESULTS: After screening 8010 records, 18 studies were included. Only one study provided data on incidence outcomes. Seventeen studies were DTA reports with direct comparisons of RADT strategies, using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Testing settings varied, corresponding to original SARS-CoV-2 or early variants. Strategies included differences in serial testing, the individual collecting swabs and swab sample locations. Overall, specificity remained high (>98%) across strategies. Although results were heterogeneous, the sensitivity for healthcare worker-collected samples was greater than for self-collected samples. Nasal samples had comparable sensitivity when compared to paired RADTs with nasopharyngeal samples, but sensitivity was much lower for saliva samples. The limited evidence for serial testing suggested higher sensitivity if RADTs were administered every 3 days compared to less frequent testing. CONCLUSIONS: Additional high-quality research is needed to confirm our findings; all studies were judged to be at risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in sensitivity estimates. Evaluations of testing algorithms in real-world settings are recommended, especially for transmission and incidence outcomes.

Effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking intervention in adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to identify the benefits and harms of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a smoking cessation aid in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) and to inform the development of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's (CTFPHC) clinical practice guidelines on e-cigarettes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Embase Classic + Embase, and the Cochrane Library on Wiley. Searches were conducted from January 2016 to July 2019 and updated on 24 September 2020 and 25 January 2024. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening according to the pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction, quality assessments, and the application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: We identified 18 studies on 17 randomized controlled trials that compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to e-cigarettes without nicotine and e-cigarettes (with or without nicotine) to other interventions (i.e., no intervention, waitlist, standard/usual care, quit advice, or behavioral support). Considering the benefits of e-cigarettes in terms of smoking abstinence and smoking frequency reduction, 14 studies showed small or moderate benefits of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine compared to other interventions; although, with low, very low or moderate evidence certainty. With a focus on e-cigarettes with nicotine specifically, 12 studies showed benefits in terms of smoking abstinence when compared with usual care or non-nicotine e-cigarettes. In terms of harms following nicotine or non-nicotine e-cigarette use, 15 studies reported mild adverse events with little to no difference between groups and low to very low evidence certainty. CONCLUSION: The evidence synthesis on the e-cigarette's effectiveness shows data surrounding benefits having low to moderate evidence certainty for some comparisons and very low certainty for others, indicating that e-cigarettes may or probably increase smoking cessation, whereas, for harms, there is low to very low evidence certainty. Since the duration for outcome measurement varied among different studies, it may not be long-term enough for Adverse Events (AEs) to emerge, and there is a need for more research to understand the long-term benefits and potential harms of e-cigarettes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099692.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

Antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities: Past interventions and implementation challenges.

Background: The threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is rising, leading to increased illness, death and healthcare costs. In long-term care facilities (LTCFs), high rates of infection coupled with high antibiotic use create a selective pressure for antimicrobial-resistant organisms that pose a risk to residents and staff as well as surrounding hospitals and communities. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is paramount in the fight against AMR, but its adoption in LTCFs has been limited. Methods: This article summarizes factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions in LTCFs and the effectiveness of past AMS interventions that have been put in place in an attempt to support those decisions. The emphasis of this literature review is the Canadian LTCF landscape; however, due to the limited literature in this area, the scope was broadened to include international studies. Results: Prescribing decisions are influenced by the context of the individual patient, their caregivers, the clinical environment, the healthcare system and surrounding culture. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions were found to be successful in LTCFs, though there was considerable heterogeneity in the literature. Conclusion: This article highlights the need for more well-designed studies that explore innovative and multifaceted solutions to AMS in LTCFs.