Elimination, substitution, engineering, and administrative interventions to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in healthcare workers

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to prevent exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 among HCWs compared to any control intervention or no intervention.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non‐healthcare‐related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews.

Objective: To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews' methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings: Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people's digital and health literacy.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Epidemiologic characteristics, clinical management, and public health implications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by the pathogenic severe acute respiratory syndrome-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, is exponentially spreading across the globe. METHODS: The current systematic review was performed utilising the following electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We searched for the keywords "COVID-19 AND "pregnancy" between January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2020. RESULTS: Out of 4005 records which were identified, 36 original studies were included in this systematic review. Pooled prevalence of vertical transmission was 10%, 95% CI: 4-17%. Pooled prevalence of neonatal mortality was 7%, 95% CI: 0-21%. CONCLUSION: The contemporary evidence suggests that the incubation period of COVID-19 is 2-14 days, and this infection could be transmitted even from the infected asymptomatic individuals. It is found that the clinical presentation of pregnant women with COVID-19 infection is comparable with the infected non-pregnant females, and the frequent symptoms were fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat and malaise. Some cases have severe maternal morbidity and perinatal deaths secondary to COVID-19 infection. Under these circumstances, pregnant women should focus on maintaining personal hygiene, proper nutrition and extreme social distancing to reduce the risk of COVID-19. Therefore, systematic data reporting for evidence based clinical assessment, management and pregnancy outcomes is essential for preventing of COVID-19 infection among pregnant women.

Development and implementation of a potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the suitability of COVID-19 vaccines for mass immunization. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of novel COVID-19 vaccine candidates under clinical trial evaluation and present a contemporary update on the development and implementation of a potential vaccines. METHODS: For this study PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were used to search for eligible studies on the interface between novel coronavirus and vaccine design until December 31, 2020. RESULTS: We have included fourteen non-randomized and randomized controlled phase I-III trials. Implementation of a universal vaccination program with proven safety and efficacy through robust clinical evaluation is the long-term goal for preventing COVID-19. The immunization program must be cost-effective for mass production and accessibility. Despite pioneering techniques for the fast-track development of the vaccine in the current global emergency, mass production and availability of an effective COVID-19 vaccine could take some more time. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a revisiting of the reported solicited and unsolicited systemic adverse events for COVID-19 candidate vaccines. Hence, it is alarming to judiciously expose thousands of participants to COVID-19 candidate vaccines at Phase-3 trials that have adverse events and insufficient evidence on safety and effectiveness that necessitates further justification.

Impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials and clinical research: A systematic review.

Background: The World Health Organization has reported more than 31,186,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), including 962,343 deaths, worldwide as on September 21, 2020. The current COVID-19 pandemic is affecting clinical research activities in most parts of the world. The focus on developing a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 and the treatment of COVID-19 is, in fact, disrupting many upcoming and/or ongoing clinical trials on other diseases around the globe. On March 18, 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an updated guideline for the conduct of clinical trials during the current health emergency situation. The potential challenges, such as social distancing and quarantines, result in study participants' inaccessibility and trial personnel for in-person scheduled study visits and/or follow-up. Due to the sudden onset and wide-spread impact of COVID-19, its influence on the management of clinical trials and research necessitates urgent attention. Therefore, our systematic review of the literature aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduction of clinical trials and research. The search for the relevant articles for review included the keywords "COVID-19" AND "clinical trial" in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Google scholar and Google electronic databases. Key findings include: delaying subject enrollment and operational gaps in most ongoing clinical trials, which in turn has a negative impact on trial programmes and data integrity. Globally, most sites conducting clinical trials other than COVID-19 are experiencing a delay in timelines and a complete halt of operations in lieu of this pandemic, thus affecting clinical research outcomes.

Vitamin C for COVID-19: A living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of vitamin C in treating patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it comprises and has been customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 29, 2020 (one day before submission). STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect, in patients with COVID-19, of vitamin C versus placebo or no treatment. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will resubmit it to the journal whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 95 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 20 ongoing studies, including 13 randomized trials evaluating vitamin C in COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020181216.