Influence of School Year on Seasonality of Norovirus Outbreaks in Developed Countries.

Factors affecting the seasonal distribution of norovirus outbreaks are not well understood. This study examined whether grade school settings at the start of the school year may be a factor. We searched Ovid Medline from January 2002 to June 2014 for studies that provided all reported norovirus outbreaks in a developed country by month for a minimum of three years. Historical school years were obtained from verifiable sources. The start of the norovirus seasonal outbreak peak and peak outbreak month were determined for each study and compared to the start month of school. Northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere countries had a different norovirus seasonality and different school year structures (traditional compared to year round). In the two studies that provided outbreaks by age, outbreaks among children started several months before outbreaks in the adult population. The median number of months between school start and start of the seasonal outbreak peak was two months (interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0-3.0), while the median number of months between school start and peak outbreak month was four months (IQR = 3.0-4.0). These findings suggest the possibility the school setting at the start of the school year may be a factor in the seasonality of norovirus.

Asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in adults is uncommon using rigorous symptom characterization and follow-up in an acute-care adult hospital outbreak.

Asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported as a significant driver of COVID-19 outbreaks. Our hospital ward outbreak analysis suggests that comprehensive symptoms and signs assessment, in combination with adequate follow-up, allows a more precise determination of COVID-19 symptoms. Asymptomatic infection was quite uncommon among adults in this setting.

Patient and ward related risk factors in a multi-ward nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19: Outbreak investigation and matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for nosocomial COVID-19 outbreaks continue to evolve. The aim of this study was to investigate a multi-ward nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 between 1st September and 15th November 2020, occurring in a setting without vaccination for any healthcare workers or patients. METHODS: Outbreak report and retrospective, matched case-control study using incidence density sampling in three cardiac wards in an 1100-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Patients were confirmed/probable COVID-19 cases and contemporaneous control patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 outbreak definitions were based on Public Health guidelines. Clinical and environmental specimens were tested by RT-PCR and as applicable quantitative viral cultures and whole genome sequencing were conducted. Controls were inpatients on the cardiac wards during the study period confirmed to be without COVID-19, matched to outbreak cases by time of symptom onset dates, age within ± 15 years and were admitted in hospital for at least 2 days. Demographics, Braden Score, baseline medications, laboratory measures, co-morbidities, and hospitalization characteristics were collected on cases and controls. Univariate and multivariate conditional logistical regression was used to identify independent risk factors for nosocomial COVID-19. RESULTS: The outbreak involved 42 healthcare workers and 39 patients. The strongest independent risk factor for nosocomial COVID-19 (IRR 3.21, 95% CI 1.47-7.02) was exposure in a multi-bedded room. Of 45 strains successfully sequenced, 44 (97.8%) were B.1.128 and differed from the most common circulating community lineages. SARS-CoV-2 positive cultures were detected in 56.7% (34/60) of clinical and environmental specimens. The multidisciplinary outbreak team observed eleven contributing events to transmission during the outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital outbreaks are complex; however multi-bedded rooms play a significant role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Primary and secondary cases in Escherichia coli O157 outbreaks: a statistical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Within outbreaks of Escherichia coli O157 (E. coli O157), at least 10-15% of cases are thought to have been acquired by secondary transmission. However, there has been little systematic quantification or characterisation of secondary outbreak cases worldwide. The aim of this study was to characterise secondary outbreak cases, estimate the overall proportion of outbreak cases that were the result of secondary transmission and to analyse the relationships between primary and secondary outbreak cases by mode of transmission, country and median age. METHODS: Published data was obtained from 90 confirmed Escherichia coli O157 outbreaks in Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Canada, the United States and Japan, and the outbreaks were described in terms of modes of primary and secondary transmission, country, case numbers and median case age. Outbreaks were tested for statistically significant differences in the number of ill, confirmed, primary and secondary cases (analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis) and in the rate of secondary cases between these variables (Generalised Linear Models). RESULTS: The outbreaks had a median of 13.5 confirmed cases, and mean proportion of 0.195 secondary cases. There were statistically significant differences in the numbers of ill, confirmed, primary and secondary cases between modes of primary transmission (p < 0.021), and in primary and secondary cases between median age categories (p < 0.039) and modes of secondary transmission (p < 0.001).Secondary case rates differed statistically significantly between modes of secondary and primary transmission and median age categories (all p < 0.001), but not between countries (p = 0.23). Statistically significantly higher rates of secondary transmission were found in outbreaks with a median age <6 years and those with secondary transmission via person to person spread in nurseries. No statistically significant interactions were found between country, mode of transmission and age category. CONCLUSION: Our analyses indicated that ~20% of E. coli O157 outbreak cases were the result of secondary spread, and that this spread is significantly influenced by age and modes of primary and secondary transmission, but not country. In particular, the results provide further data emphasising the importance of simple but effective preventive strategies, such as handwashing, that can reduce the risk of secondary spread, particularly amongst young children in nurseries.

Quality of reporting in clinical trials of preharvest food safety interventions and associations with treatment effect.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. Therefore, it is important that RCTs are conducted with methodological rigor to prevent biased results and report results in a manner that allows the reader to evaluate internal and external validity. Most human health journals now require manuscripts to meet the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for reporting of RCTs. Our objective was to evaluate preharvest food safety trials using a modification of the CONSORT criteria to assess methodological quality and completeness of reporting, and to investigate associations between reporting and treatment effects. One hundred randomly selected trials were evaluated using a modified CONSORT statement. The majority of the selected trials (84%) used a deliberate disease challenge, with the remainder representing natural pathogen exposure. There were widespread deficiencies in the reporting of many trial features. Randomization, double blinding, and the number of subjects lost to follow-up were reported in only 46%, 0%, and 43% of trials, respectively. The inclusion criteria for study subjects were only described in 16% of trials, and the number of animals housed together was only stated in 52% of the trials. Although 91 trials had more than one outcome, no trials specified the primary outcome of interest. There were significant bivariable associations between the proportion of positive treatment effects and failure to report the number of subjects lost to follow-up, the number of animals housed together in a group, the level of treatment allocation, and possible study limitations. The results suggest that there are substantive deficiencies in reporting of preharvest food safety trials, and that these deficiencies may be associated with biased treatment effects. The creation and adoption of standards for reporting in preharvest food safety trials will help to ensure the inclusion of important trial details in all publications.

Completeness of reporting in abstracts from clinical trials of pre-harvest interventions against foodborne pathogens.

Abstracts are the most commonly read part of a journal article, and play an important role as summaries of the articles, and search and screening tools. However, research on abstracts in human biomedicine has shown that abstracts often do not report key methodological features and results. Little research has been done to examine reporting of such features in abstracts from papers detailing pre-harvest food safety trials. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of key factors in abstracts detailing trials of pre-harvest food safety interventions. A systematic search algorithm was used to identify all in vivo trials of pre-harvest interventions against foodborne pathogens in PubMed and CAB Direct published from 1999 to October 2009. References were screened for relevance, and 150 were randomly chosen for inclusion in the study. A checklist based on the CONSORT abstract extension and the REFLECT Statement was used to assess the reporting of methodological features and results. All screening and assessment was performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by consensus. The systematic search returned 3554 unique citations; 356 were found to be relevant and 150 were randomly selected for inclusion. The abstracts were from 51 different journals, and 13 out of 150 were structured. Of the 124 abstracts that reported whether the trial design was deliberate disease challenge or natural exposure, 113 were deliberate challenge and 11 natural exposure. 103 abstracts detailed studies involving poultry, 20 cattle and 15 swine. Most abstracts reported the production stage of the animals (135/150), a hypothesis or objective (123/150), and results for all treatment groups (136/150). However, few abstracts reported on how animals were grouped in housing (25/150), the location of the study (5/150), the primary outcome (2/126), level of treatment allocation (15/150), sample size (63/150) or whether study units were lost to follow up (4/150). Forty-eight (48/150) abstracts reported the name, mode of administration, dose and duration of the intervention(s), while 102 (102/150) reported at least one of these elements. Nine (9/150) abstracts specified that allocation of study units to treatments was randomized, and none of the abstracts reported whether blinding was used (0/150). These results reveal gaps in reporting of methodological features and results. Thus, improving reporting quality in abstracts should be a crucial goal to be pursued by authors, reviewers and journal editors.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of pasteurization on milk vitamins, and evidence for raw milk consumption and other health-related outcomes.

Pasteurization of milk ensures safety for human consumption by reducing the number of viable pathogenic bacteria. Although the public health benefits of pasteurization are well established, pro-raw milk advocate organizations continue to promote raw milk as "nature's perfect food." Advocacy groups' claims include statements that pasteurization destroys important vitamins and that raw milk consumption can prevent and treat allergies, cancer, and lactose intolerance. A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed to summarize available evidence for these selected claims. Forty studies assessing the effects of pasteurization on vitamin levels were found. Qualitatively, vitamins B12 and E decreased following pasteurization, and vitamin A increased. Random effects meta-analysis revealed no significant effect of pasteurization on vitamin B6 concentrations (standardized mean difference [SMD], -2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.40, 0.8; P = 0.06) but a decrease in concentrations of vitamins B1 (SMD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.57, -0.96; P < 0.001), B2 (SMD, -0.41; 95% CI, -0.81, -0.01; P < 0.05), C (SMD, -2.13; 95% CI, -3.52, -0.74; P < 0.01), and folate (SMD, -11.99; 95% CI, -20.95, -3.03; P < 0.01). The effect of pasteurization on milk's nutritive value was minimal because many of these vitamins are naturally found in relatively low levels. However, milk is an important dietary source of vitamin B2, and the impact of heat treatment should be further considered. Raw milk consumption may have a protective association with allergy development (six studies), although this relationship may be potentially confounded by other farming-related factors. Raw milk consumption was not associated with cancer (two studies) or lactose intolerance (one study). Overall, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the poor quality of reported methodology in many of the included studies.

Reporting of methodological features in observational studies of pre-harvest food safety.

Observational studies in pre-harvest food safety may be useful for identifying risk factors and for evaluating potential mitigation strategies to reduce foodborne pathogens. However, there are no structured reporting guidelines for these types of study designs in livestock species. Our objective was to evaluate the reporting of observational studies in the pre-harvest food safety literature using guidelines modified from the human healthcare literature. We identified 100 pre-harvest food safety studies published between 1999 and 2009. Each study was evaluated independently by two reviewers using a structured checklist. Of the 38 studies that explicitly stated the observational study design, 27 were described as cross-sectional studies, eight as case-control studies, and three as cohort studies. Study features reported in over 75% of the selected studies included: description of the geographic location of the studies, definitions and sources of data for outcomes, organizational level and source of data for independent variables, description of statistical methods and results, number of herds enrolled in the study and included in the analysis, and sources of study funding. However, other features were not consistently reported, including details related to eligibility criteria for groups (such as barn, room, or pen) and individuals, numbers of groups and individuals included in various stages of the study, identification of primary outcomes, the distinction between putative risk factors and confounding variables, the identification of a primary exposure variable, the referent level for evaluation of categorical variable associations, methods of controlling confounding variables and missing variables, model fit, details of subset analysis, demographic information at the sampling unit level, and generalizability of the study results. Improvement in reporting of observational studies of pre-harvest food safety will aid research readers and reviewers in interpreting and evaluating the results of such studies.

Analysis of trends in the full publication of papers from conference abstracts involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens.

Study results are often presented as abstracts at scientific conferences before publication as full articles in peer-reviewed journals. Given the current emphasis on evidence-based decision-making, it is vital that the peer-reviewed literature represents as broad and un-biased a selection of studies as possible. While the proportion of abstracts published as full papers in the peer-reviewed literature has been extensively studied in human healthcare, no such studies have been published in the field of food safety. The goal of this study was to estimate the proportion published and average time to publication for conference abstracts involving studies of pre-harvest or abattoir interventions to reduce foodborne pathogens. Abstracts were obtained by hand-searching available proceedings between 1995 and 2004 from 10 conferences. Included abstracts were limited to those detailing non-observational, controlled in vivo trials where outcome(s) were measured in livestock, carcasses or eggs. Data on abstract type (500 words), species, intervention, study type, sample size, number housed together and outcomes were recorded. Four databases (Agricola, CAB, Web of Science, Scholar's Portal) were searched for published papers corresponding to the conference abstracts using author and intervention/pathogen terms. Time to publication and overall median time to publication were estimated. Chi-squared, logistic regression and survival analyses were used to test for significant differences in proportion published and time to publication between variable levels. Of the 149 abstracts identified, 68 (45.6%) were published in peer-reviewed journals within 4 years. The median time to publication was 13.5 months (range: 0, 72). Abstracts shorter than 1 page were significantly more likely to be published (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.0, 4.8), and abstracts involving pork or pigs were significantly less likely to be published that those involving poultry (OR=0.4: 0.2, 0.8). Abstracts reporting at least one positive outcome were more likely to be published (OR=2.608: 1.097, 6.196) and were published faster (HR=2.3: 1.1, 4.7). Time to publication decreased with the number of positive outcomes reported (HR=1.1: 1.0, 1.3). Sample size could only be determined for 46% of abstracts, with a median sample size of 9 (range 1-378), and housing was sufficiently described to determine sample size in 35% of pre-slaughter studies. The potential effects of this bias on systematic reviews and uses of interventions could be significant, and thus improvements may be warranted in the proportion of conference abstracts resulting in papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

Comparison of outcomes and other variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed papers involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens.

Accuracy in the reporting of studies in conference abstracts is important because the majority of studies in such abstracts are never further detailed in peer-reviewed publications, and data from such abstracts may be used in systematic reviews. Previous research on interventional studies in human biomedicine indicates that there is no guarantee of consistency between a conference abstract and paper in the reporting of results and other key variables. However, no research has been done to determine if this lack of reporting consistency in abstracts and papers extends to interventional studies in pre-harvest/harvest-level food safety. The goal of this study was to compare outcome results and other key variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed publications describing studies of pre-harvest and abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens, and to determine whether the agreement in the results or key variables was associated with the time to full publication. A systematic search identified 59 conference abstracts with matching peer-reviewed papers (matches), and data on variables including outcome measures and results, pathogens, species, interventions, overall efficacy of intervention, sample size and housing were extracted from both the conference abstracts and the papers. The matching of variables between abstracts and papers was described, and logistic regression used to test for associations between variable matching and time to publication. Sample size was only provided for both abstract and paper in 24 matches; the same sample size was reported in 20 of these matches. Most other variables were reported in the majority of abstracts/papers, and with the exception of outcomes and intervention effect, the reporting of variables was relatively consistent. There was no significant difference in the numbers of authors, with the first author the same in 78.3% of matches. Of 231 outcome measures reported in both abstracts and papers, nearly one third (77% or 32.2%) had different results, with 32 changing direction of effect. More than a quarter of matches involved at least one significant change in outcome result. The overall conclusion on the efficacy of the intervention changed in 10.7% of matches. There was a significant association between increased time to publication and differences in the number of authors, and having fewer outcome measures in the abstract reported in the paper. These results suggest that data from conference abstracts should be considered with caution.