Evaluation of a home-based 7-day infection control strategy for healthcare workers following high-risk exposure to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based infection control strategies are needed for healthcare workers (HCWs) following high-risk exposure to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, we evaluated the negative predictive value (NPV) of a home-based 7-day infection control strategy. METHODS: HCWs advised by their infection control or occupational health officer to self-isolate due to a high-risk SARS-CoV-2 exposure were enrolled between May and October 2020. The strategy consisted of symptom-triggered nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing from day 0 to day 7 after exposure and standardized home-based nasopharyngeal swab and saliva testing on day 7. The NPV of this strategy was calculated for (1) clinical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis from day 8-14 after exposure, and for (2) asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 detected by standardized nasopharyngeal swab and saliva specimens collected at days 9, 10, and 14 after exposure. Interim results are reported in the context of a second wave threatening this essential workforce. RESULTS: Among 30 HCWs enrolled, the mean age was 31 years (SD, ±9), and 24 (80%) were female. Moreover, 3 were diagnosed with COVID-19 by day 14 after exposure (secondary attack rate, 10.0%), and all cases were detected using the 7-day infection control strategy: the NPV for subsequent clinical COVID-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 detection by day 14 was 100.0% (95% CI, 93.1%-100.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among HCWs with high-risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2, a home-based 7-day infection control strategy may have a high NPV for subsequent COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 detection. Ongoing data collection and data sharing are needed to improve the precision of the estimated NPV, and here we report interim results to inform infection control strategies in light of a second wave threatening this essential workforce.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.