The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. METHODS: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. RESULTS: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Explanation and Elaboration.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

A Comparison of Signals of Designated Medical Events and Non-designated Medical Events: Results from a Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) maintains a list of designated medical events (DMEs), events that are inherently serious and are prioritized for signal detection, irrespective of statistical criteria. We have analysed the results of our previously published scoping review to determine whether DME signals differ from those of other adverse events in terms of time to communication and characteristics of supporting reports of suspected adverse drug reactions. METHODS: For all signals, we obtained the launch year of medicinal products from textbooks or regulatory agencies, extracted the year of the first report in VigiBase and calculated the interval between the first report and communication (time to communication, TTC). We further retrieved the average completeness (via vigiGrade) of the reports in each case series in the years before the communication. We categorised as DME signals those concerning an event in the EMA's list. We described the two groups of signals using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) and compared them using the Brunner-Munzel test, calculating 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and P values. RESULTS: Of 4520 signals, 919 concerned DMEs and 3601 concerned non-DMEs. Signals of DMEs were supported by a median of 15 reports (IQR 6-38 reports) with a completeness score of 0.52 (IQR 0.43-0.62) and signals of non-DMEs by 20 reports (IQR 6-84 reports) with a completeness score of 0.46 (IQR 0.38-0.56). The probability that a random DME signal was supported by fewer reports than non-DME signals was 0.56 (95% CI 0.54-0.58, P < 0.001) and that of one having lower average completeness was 0.39 (95% CI 0.36-0.41, P < 0.001). The median TTCs of DME and non-DME signals did not differ (10 years), but the TTC was as low as 2 years when signals (irrespective of classification) were supported by reports whose average completeness was > 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Signals of designated medical events were supported by fewer reports and higher completeness scores than signals of other adverse events. Although statistically significant, the differences in effect sizes between the two groups were small. This suggests that listing certain adverse events as DMEs is not having the expected effect of encouraging a focus on reports of the types of suspected adverse reactions that deserve special attention. Further enhancing the completeness of the reports of suspected adverse drug reactions supporting signals of designated medical events might shorten their time to communication and reduce the number of reports required to support them.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated disruptions in health-care provision on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered disruptions to health care and lifestyles that could conceivably impact diabetes management. We set out to identify the impact of disruptions caused by COVID-19 on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes. We performed a systematic review of the available literature in the MEDLINE and OVID databases from Jan 1, 2020, to June 7, 2023, and included 138 studies (n>1 000 000 people). All but five studies were judged to be at some risk of bias. All studies compared prepandemic with pandemic periods. All-cause mortality (six studies) and diabetes-related mortality (13 studies) showed consistent increases, and most studies indicated increases in sight loss (six studies). In adult and mixed samples, data generally suggested no difference in diabetic ketoacidosis frequency or severity, whereas in children and adolescents most studies showed increases with some due to new-onset diabetes (69 studies). Data suggested decreases in hospital admissions in adults but increases in diabetes-related admissions to paediatric intensive care units (35 studies). Data were equivocal on diabetic foot ulcer presentations (nine studies), emergency department admissions (nine studies), and overall amputation rates (20 studies). No studies investigated renal failure. Where reported, the impact was most pronounced for females, younger people, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the longer-term impact of the pandemic and the on potential differential impacts, which risk further exacerbating existing inequalities within people with diabetes.

Coinfection with Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate Strongyloides disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention. METHODS: We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis. RESULTS: We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with Strongyloides reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between Strongyloides reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the Strongyloides infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with Strongyloides, ranging from certain to possible. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of Strongyloides reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for Strongyloides reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.

Signals of Adverse Drug Reactions Communicated by Pharmacovigilance Stakeholders: A Scoping Review of the Global Literature.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Signals of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be supported by reports of ADRs and by interventional and non-interventional studies. The evidence base and features of ADR reports that are used to support signals remain to be comprehensively described. To this end, we have undertaken a scoping review. METHODS: We searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions. We also hand searched the bibliographies of relevant studies. We included studies of any design if the results were described as signals. We assessed the levels of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria and coded features of reports of ADRs using the Bradford Hill guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 1974 publications reported 2421 studies of signals; 1683/2421 were clinical assessments of anecdotal reports of ADRs, but only 225 (13%) of these included explicit judgments on which features of the ADR reports were supportive of a signal. These 225 studies yielded 228 signals; these were supported by features, which were: 'experimental evidence' (i.e., positive dechallenge or rechallenge, 154 instances [68%]), 'temporality' (i.e., time to onset, 130 [57%]), 'exclusion of competing causes' (49 [21%]), and others (40 [17%]). Positive dechallenge/rechallenge often co-occurred with temporality (77/228). OCEBM 4 (i.e., case series and case-control studies) was the most frequent level of evidence (2078 studies). Between 2013 and 2019, there was a three-fold increase in clinical assessments of reports of ADRs compared with a less than two-fold increase in studies supported by higher levels of evidence (i.e., OCEBM 1-3). We identified an increased rate between 2013 and 2019 in disproportionality analyses (about 15 studies per year), mostly from academia. CONCLUSIONS: Most signals were supported by temporality and dechallenge/rechallenge, but clear reporting of judgments on causality remains infrequent. The number of studies supported only by anecdotal reports of ADRs increased from year to year. The impact of a growing number of signals of disproportionate reporting communicated without an accompanying clinical assessment should be evaluated.

Biomarkers of potential harm in people switching from smoking tobacco to exclusive e-cigarette use, dual use or abstinence: secondary analysis of Cochrane systematic review of trials of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

AIMS: This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies. DESIGN: Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and effect direction plots. SETTING: This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers. FINDINGS: In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = -4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = -9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = -17.30 to -1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = -1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Cruise Ship Travel: A Systematic Review.

Background: Maritime and river travel may be associated with respiratory viral spread via infected passengers and/or crew and potentially through other transmission routes. The transmission models of SARS-CoV-2 associated with cruise ship travel are based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. We aimed to provide a summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships, report policy implications, and highlight research gaps. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (up to 26 May 2022) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships. The quality of the studies was assessed based on five criteria, and relevant findings were reported. Results: We included 23 papers on onboard SARS-CoV-2 transmission (with 15 reports on different aspects of the outbreak on Diamond Princess and nine reports on other international cruises), 2 environmental studies, and 1 systematic review. Three articles presented data on both international cruises and the Diamond Princess. The quality of evidence from most studies was low to very low. Index case definitions were heterogeneous. The proportion of traced contacts ranged from 0.19 to 100%. Studies that followed up >80% of passengers and crew reported attack rates (AR) up to 59%. The presence of a distinct dose−response relationship was demonstrated by findings of increased ARs in multi-person cabins. Two studies performed viral cultures with eight positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analyses were performed in individuals from three cruises. Two environmental studies reported PCR-positive samples (cycle threshold range 26.21−39.00). In one study, no infectious virus was isolated from any of the 76 environmental samples. Conclusion: Our review suggests that crowding and multiple persons per cabin were associated with an increased risk of transmission on cruise ships. Variations in design, methodology, and case ascertainment limit comparisons across studies and quantification of transmission risk. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting studies on cruise ships of acute respiratory infection transmission should be developed.

A Hierarchical Framework for Assessing Transmission Causality of Respiratory Viruses.

Systematic reviews of 591 primary studies of the modes of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 show significant methodological shortcomings and heterogeneity in the design, conduct, testing, and reporting of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. While this is partly understandable at the outset of a pandemic, evidence rules of proof for assessing the transmission of this virus are needed for present and future pandemics of viral respiratory pathogens. We review the history of causality assessment related to microbial etiologies with a focus on respiratory viruses and suggest a hierarchy of evidence to integrate clinical, epidemiologic, molecular, and laboratory perspectives on transmission. The hierarchy, if applied to future studies, should narrow the uncertainty over the twin concepts of causality and transmission of human respiratory viruses. We attempt to address the translational gap between the current research evidence and the assessment of causality in the transmission of respiratory viruses with a focus on SARS-CoV-2. Experimentation, consistency, and independent replication of research alongside our proposed framework provide a chain of evidence that can reduce the uncertainty over the transmission of respiratory viruses and increase the level of confidence in specific modes of transmission, informing the measures that should be undertaken to prevent transmission.

Recommendations of high-quality clinical practice guidelines related to the process of starting dialysis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time for initiation of dialysis and which modality to choose as the starting therapy is currently unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the recommendations across high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to the start of dialysis. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, and databases of organisations that develop CPGs between September 2008 to August 2021 for CPGs that addressed recommendations on the timing of initiation of dialysis, selection of dialysis modality, and interventions to support the decision-making process to select a dialysis modality. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument to assess the methodological quality of the CPGs and included only high-quality CPGs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42018110325. RESULTS: We included 12 high-quality CPGs. Six CPGs addressed recommendations related to the timing of initiating dialysis, and all agreed on starting dialysis in the presence of symptoms or signs. Six CPGs addressed recommendations related to the selection of modality but varied greatly in their content. Nine CPGs addressed recommendations related to interventions to support the decision-making process. Eight CPGs agreed on recommended educational programs that include information about dialysis options. One CPG considered using patient decision aids a strong recommendation. LIMITATIONS: We could have missed potentially relevant guidelines since we limited our search to CPGs published from 2008, and we set up a cut-off point of 60% in domains of the rigour of development and editorial independence. CONCLUSION: High-quality CPGs related to the process of starting dialysis were consistent in initiating dialysis in the presence of symptoms or signs and offering patients education at the point of decision-making. There was variability in how CPGs addressed the issue of dialysis modality selection. CPGs should improve strategies on putting recommendations into practice and the quality of evidence to aid decision-making for patients. REGISTRATION: The protocol of this systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD CRD42018110325. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD42018110325.

Calcium hydroxide as an intracanal medication for postoperative pain during primary root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of CH as an intracanal medicament compared to no dressing and / or other intracanal medicaments to control postoperative pain in patients with apical periodontitis requiring primary root canal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library, Open Gray, and Google Scholar. A structured Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome of the review was as follows: Population: adults who presented with apical periodontitis requiring primary root canal therapy; Intervention: CH intracanal medicament; Comparison: no dressing/other intracanal medicaments; Main Outcome: Postoperative pain. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane criteria. Our outcome measures were intensity of pain on a validated scale reported as mean and standard deviation. We performed meta-analysis using the random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 18 studies with 1192 participants. The overall risk of bias was moderate. We found a significant improvement in postoperative pain at 24 hours in favor of CH over no intracanal medication (4 trials, n = 226: standardised mean difference: -0.71; [95% confidence interval: -1.38, -0.03]; P = .04; I2= 78%; moderate certainty evidence). Ledermix (Lederle Germany) (steroid-antibiotic) and chlorhexidine were significantly more effective than CH for controlling pain at 72 hours postprocedure (low certainty evidence). Silver nanoparticles were more effective than CH at 6 and 24 hours and combinations of CH with dexamethasone or lidocaine HCl were significantly more effective than CH alone at improving postoperative pain. Substantial heterogeneity limits the robustness of findings. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that CH may be an effective intracanal medicament for controlling interappointment pain. Combination therapies appear to be more effective than using CH alone. Further research assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions for managing postoperative pain following root canal therapy is warranted.

International oncology drug approvals for multiregional or single-country clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Cancer remains one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Multiregional (MRCTs) and single-country clinical trials are two common approaches to support new oncology drug approvals internationally. However, systematic reviews comparing MRCTs with single-country trials for international oncology drug approval are lacking. Methods: We searched health agency websites to retrieve all approved oncology drugs from 2010 to 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov was used to retrieve all pivotal study information. We used an adapted version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) checklist to assess the risk-of-bias in randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively. Results: A total of 48 new drugs and biologics (comprising 215 pivotal clinical trials) with initial marketing approval in the United States, European Union, Japan, and China were included. The reporting quality of MRCTs vs. single-country studies was similar. The median time interval for approval was significantly longer for MRCTs than for single-country bridging studies (1,399 vs. 975 days, P < 0.0001), whereas the median time interval for approval was shorter for MRCTs than for single-country standalone studies. The time gap for oncology drugs approved before 2015 was significantly longer than for those approved after 2015. The median timeline for approval in MRCTs involving 3 regions showed the shortest time-to-approval compared with MRCTs involving 4-5 and 1-2 regions. There was no significant difference in the time-to-approval among different tumor types and product types. Conclusion: The median time-to-approval of MRCTs was significantly longer than that of single-country bridging studies but shorter than that of single-country standalone studies, primarily involving 3 regions as the most frequent pattern and the shortest time-to-approval to operate MRCTs as a pivotal trial. Single-country bridging studies still provide essential supplements for international oncology drug approvals if MRCTs do not apply. Future studies should explore how to shorten the time-to-approval for MRCTs. Systematic review registration: [https://www.researchregistry.com/browsethe-registry#registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analyses/], identifier [1390].

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from pre and asymptomatic infected individuals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of SARS-Cov-2-infected persons who develop symptoms after testing (presymptomatics) or not at all (asymptomatics) in the pandemic spread is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine infectiousness and probable contribution of asymptomatic persons (at the time of testing) to pandemic SARS-CoV-2 spread. DATA SOURCES: LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and WHO Covid-19 databases (to 31 March 2021) and references in included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies with a proven or hypothesized transmission chain based either on serial PCR cycle threshold readings and/or viral culture and/or gene sequencing, with adequate follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: People exposed to SARS-CoV-2 within 2-14 days to index asymptomatic (at time of observation) infected individuals. INTERVENTIONS: Reliability of symptom and signs was assessed within contemporary knowledge; transmission likelihood was assessed using adapted causality criteria. METHODS: Systematic review. We contacted all included studies' corresponding authors requesting further details. RESULTS: We included 18 studies from a diverse setting with substantial methodological variation (this field lacks standardized methodology). At initial testing, prevalence of asymptomatic cases was 12.5-100%. Of these, 6-100% were later determined to be presymptomatic, this proportion varying according to setting, methods of case ascertainment and population. Nursing/care home facilities reported high rates of presymptomatic: 50-100% (n = 3 studies). Fourteen studies were classified as high risk of, and four studies as at moderate risk of symptom ascertainment bias. High-risk studies may be less likely to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Six asymptomatic studies and four presymptomatic studies reported culturing infectious virus; data were too sparse to determine infectiousness duration. Three studies provided evidence of possible and three of probable/likely asymptomatic transmission; five studies provided possible and two probable/likely presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies provide probable evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, with highly variable estimated transmission rates.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with aircraft travel: a systematic review.

RATIONALE FOR THE REVIEW: Air travel may be associated with viruses spread via infected passengers and potentially through in-flight transmission. Given the novelty of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, transmission associated with air travel is based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. Our objective was to provide a rapid summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard aircraft, report policy implications and to highlight research gaps requiring urgent attention. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (1 February 2020-27 January 2021) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard aircraft. We assessed study quality based on five criteria and reported important findings. KEY FINDINGS: We included 18 studies on in-flight SARS-CoV-2 transmission (130 unique flights) and 2 studies on wastewater from aircraft. The quality of evidence from most published studies was low. Two wastewater studies reported PCR-positive samples with high cycle threshold values (33-39). Index case definition was heterogeneous across studies. The proportion of contacts traced ranged from 0.68 to 100%. Authors traced 2800/19 729 passengers, 140/180 crew members and 8/8 medical staff. Altogether, 273 index cases were reported, with 64 secondary cases. Three studies, each investigating one flight, reported no secondary cases. Secondary attack rate among studies following up >80% of passengers and crew (including data on 10 flights) varied between 0 and 8.2%. The studies reported on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic individuals. Two studies performed viral cultures with 10 positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis were performed in individuals from four flights. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted during aircraft travel, but published data do not permit any conclusive assessment of likelihood and extent. The variation in design and methodology restricts the comparison of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting future studies of transmission on aircraft should be developed.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission.  Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83).  Conclusions: The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted.

Covered stents versus balloon angioplasty for failure of arteriovenous access: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage renal disease may require arteriovenous (AV) access in the form of arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) or arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) for haemodialysis. AV access dysfunction requires intervention such as plain balloon angioplasty or covered stents to regain patency. AIM: To systematically review and meta-analyse the patency outcomes of covered stents in failing haemodialysis AV access, compared with balloon angioplasty. METHODS: The review was first registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018069955) before data collection. We searched six electronic databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up until August 2020, without language restriction. Two reviewers assessed the suitability and quality of studies for inclusion using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included seven studies including 1147 patients in the systematic review, of which 867 had AVGs and 280 had AVFs. One study was an ongoing RCT. In the meta-analyses, we assessed patients with failing AVGs only. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Covered stents were associated with lower loss of patency versus angioplasty alone at 6, 12 and 24 months (OR 4.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 10.14, p<0.001; OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.74 to 9.54, p=0.001; OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.29, p=0.01, respectively). Covered stents afforded superior access circuit primary patency compared with angioplasty alone at 6 and 12 months (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.80, p<0.001; OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.41, p=0.02, respectively). This was not significant at 24 months. There was no significant difference in loss of secondary patency between groups at 12 or 24 months (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23, p=0.25; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.154, p=0.34, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results support use of covered stents over angioplasty alone, at 6, 12 and 24 months in failing AVGs. Further clinical trials are warranted.