Paracoccidioidomycosis Diagnosed in Europe-A Systematic Literature Review.

Paracoccidioidomycosis is a systemic mycosis that is endemic in geographical regions of Central and South America. Cases that occur in nonendemic regions of the world are imported through migration and travel. Due to the limited number of cases in Europe, most physicians are not familiar with paracoccidioidomycosis and its close clinical and histopathological resemblance to other infectious and noninfectious disease. To increase awareness of this insidious mycosis, we conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on cases diagnosed and reported in Europe. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify cases of paracoccidioidomycosis diagnosed in European countries. In addition, we used Scopus for citation tracking and manually screened bibliographies of relevant articles. We conducted dual abstract and full-text screening of references yielded by our searches. To identify publications published prior to 1985, we used the previously published review by Ajello et al. Overall, we identified 83 cases of paracoccidioidomycosis diagnosed in 11 European countries, published in 68 articles. Age of patients ranged from 24 to 77 years; the majority were male. Time from leaving the endemic region and first occurrence of symptoms considerably varied. Our review illustrates the challenges of considering systemic mycosis in the differential diagnosis of people returning or immigrating to Europe from endemic areas. Travel history is important for diagnostic-workup, though it might be difficult to obtain due to possible long latency period of the disease.

Household interventions for secondary prevention of domestic lead exposure in children.

BACKGROUND: Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi-RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non-beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II): MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight-year follow-up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low-certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low-certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.

[Quarantine Alone or in Combination with Other Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19: A Rapid Review (Review)]. / Quarantäne alleine oder in Kombination mit weiteren Public-Health-Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der COVID-19 Pandemie: Ein Cochrane Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a new, rapidly emerging zoonotic infectious disease, that was reported to the World Health Organization for the first time on 31 December 2019. Currently, no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccines are available to treat or prevent COVID-19, therefore nonpharmacological public health measures are more in focus. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the effects of quarantine - alone or in combination with other measures - during coronavirus outbreaks. METHODS: Because of the current COVID-19 pandemic, WHO commissioned a rapid review. To save time, the method of systematic reviews was slightly and with caution modified. This publication is a summary of the most important aspects of the rapid review, translated into German by members of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the Danube University Krems (Austria). RESULTS: Overall, 29 studies were included. Ten modeling studies focused on COVID-19, 4 observational studies and 15 modeling studies focused on SARS and MERS. The modeling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures. For example, the models estimated that quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 prevented between 44 and 81% of the cases that would otherwise have happened and 31 to 63% of the deaths, when compared to no such measures. In regard to costs, the earlier the quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings will be. CONCLUSION: Our confidence in the evidence is very limited. This is mainly because the COVID-19 studies based their models on the limited data that have been available in the early weeks of the pandemic and made different assumptions about the virus. The studies of SARS and MERS are not completely generalizable to COVID-19. Despite only having limited evidence, all the studies found quarantine to be important for controlling the spread of severe coronavirus diseases. Looking to the coming months, in order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must continue to constantly monitor the outbreak situation and the impact of the measures they implement.

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.

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 classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case 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 abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. 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 and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.

A randomized cross-over trial in patients suspected of PAD on diagnostic accuracy of ankle-brachial index by Doppler-based versus four-point oscillometry based measurements.

Background: For diagnosis of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAD), a Doppler-based ankle-brachial-index (dABI) is recommended as the first non-invasive measurement. Due to limitations of dABI, oscillometry might be used as an alternative. The aim of our study was to investigate whether a semi-automatic, four-point oscillometric device provides comparable diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, time requirements and patient preferences were evaluated. Patients and methods: 286 patients were recruited for the study; 140 without and 146 with PAD. The Doppler-based (dABI) and oscillometric (oABI and pulse wave index - PWI) measurements were performed on the same day in a randomized cross-over design. Specificity and sensitivity against verified PAD diagnosis were computed and compared by McNemar tests. ROC analyses were performed and areas under the curve were compared by non-parametric methods. Results: oABI had significantly lower sensitivity (65.8%, 95% CI: 59.2%-71.9%) compared to dABI (87.3%, CI: 81.9-91.3%) but significantly higher specificity (79.7%, 74.7-83.9% vs. 67.0%, 61.3-72.2%). PWI had a comparable sensitivity to dABI. The combination of oABI and PWI had the highest sensitivity (88.8%, 85.7-91.4%). ROC analysis revealed that PWI had the largest area under the curve, but no significant differences between oABI and dABI were observed. Time requirement for oABI was significantly shorter by about 5 min and significantly more patients would prefer oABI for future testing. Conclusions: Semi-automatic oABI measurements using the AngER-device provide comparable diagnostic results to the conventional Doppler method while PWI performed best. The time saved by oscillometry could be important, especially in high volume centers and epidemiologic studies.

Antibody-mediated rejection in hand transplantation.

Clinical relevance of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has not been defined. We herein describe a novel type of donor-specific antibody (DSA) and B-cell-associated rejection in hand transplantation. In 2003, a bilateral forearm transplantation was performed on a 42-year-old male patient. In 2012, the patient presented with edematous hands and forearms without skin lesions. Punch skin biopsies revealed rejection grade Banff II. Immunohistochemical analysis identified large aggregates of CD20 + lymphocytes with an architecture resembling lymph nodes. De novo DSA was found at a high level. Steroid treatment was ineffective, but administration of rituximab resulted in complete remission of clinical symptoms, evaporation of B-cell aggregates, and disappearance of DSA. We herein report the first case of what we suggest is an ABMR in VCA occurring at 9 years after forearm transplantation. Rituximab therapy successfully reversed the event.