Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Determinants of immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients: an Italian observational study (the CESIT project).

BACKGROUND: Very scanty evidence is available on factors influencing the choice of immunosuppressive drug therapy after kidney transplantation. METHODS: An Italian multiregional real-world study was conducted integrating national transplant information system and claims data. All patients undergoing kidney transplantation for the first time during 2009-2019 (incident patients) were considered. Multilevel logistic models were used to estimate Odds Ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% Confidence intervals. Factors with statistically significance were identified as characteristics associated with treatment regimens: cyclosporin-CsA vs tacrolimus-Tac and, within the latter group, mTOR inhibitors vs mycophenolate-MMF. RESULTS: We identified 3,622 kidney patients undergoing transplantation in 17 hospitals located in 4 Italian regions, 78.3% was treated with TAC-based therapy, of which 78% and 22% in combination with MMF and mTOR, respectively. For both comparison groups, the choice of immunosuppressive regimens was mostly guided by standard hospital practices. Only few recipient and donor characteristics were found associated with specific regimen (donor/receipt age, immunological risk and diabetes). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of post-renal transplant immunosuppressive therapy seems to be mostly driven by standard Centre practices, while only partially based on patient's characteristics and recognized international guidelines.

[The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Italian and foreign population in the various phases: the results of an interregional multicentre project]. / L'impatto della pandemia di COVID-19 nella popolazione italiana e straniera residente nelle diverse fasi: i risultati di un progetto multicentrico inter-regionale.

OBJECTIVES: to analyze the difference of the SARS-CoV-2 infection impact between Italian and foreigner subjects, evaluating the trend of infections and access to diagnostic tests (molecular or antigenic swabs for the detection of SARS- CoV-2) in the two different populations, inducing the detection of new positive cases in the population. DESIGN: retrospective population study for the period February 2020-June 2021. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Italian and foreign resident population on 1st January of the years 2020 and 2021 in the Regions participating to the project: Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna (Northern Italy), Tuscany, Lazio (Central Italy), and Sicily (Southern Italy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: in the two populations, for every week and aggregated by macropandemic period were calculated: • the test rate (people tested on the population); • the swab positivity rate (positive subjects on those who are tested); • the new positives (positive subjects on study population); • the percentage of foreigners among the new positive cases. The ratio of the value of the indicators in the foreign and Italian populations (with 95% confidence interval) was calculated to evaluate the association between nationality (Italian vs not Italian) and outcome. The analyses were conducted at the regional level and at pool level. RESULTS: the trend of new positives by nationality (Italian vs not Italian) has a similar tendency in the different pandemic waves. However, the incidence of new positives during pandemic waves among foreigners is lower than in Italians, while it tends to increase during intermediate periods. Except for the summer periods, foreigners are less tested than Italians, but the percentage of new positives out of the total of new ones tested is higher among foreigners compared to Italians. The relative weight of new positives among foreigners tends to increase in periods with the greatest risk of inflow of SARS-CoV-2 for foreigners. CONCLUSIONS: the epidemic trends in the two populations are similar, although foreigners tend to show lower incidence values, probably in part because they are tested less frequently. Furthermore, in foreigners compared to Italians, there is a greater risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in periods of relaxation of containment Coronavirus measures, reopening of national borders, production and commercial activities.

[Impact of COVID-19 on the immigrant population in the Veneto Region (Northern Italy), by geographical area of origin]. / Impatto del COVID-19 nella popolazione immigrata in Veneto, per area geografica di provenienza.

OBJECTIVES: to examine the differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization rates among migrant populations in Veneto Region (Northern Italy), according to the geographic area of origin. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: all residents in Veneto Region aged <65 years were included in the analyses. All subjects infected by SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized for COVID-19 were identified by means of the regional biosurveillance system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: age- and gender-specific infection and hospitalization rates were stratified by geographic area of origin and were estimated using the number of incident cases over the resident population in Veneto on 01.01.2021. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for infection and hospitalization rates were estimated using a Poisson model, adjusted for age and gender, among migrants compared to Italians. RESULTS: compared to Italians, SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were significantly higher among migrants from Central and South America and Central and South Asia, lower among those from North Africa and High-Income Countries (HIC), and were approximately halved for those coming from Other Asian Countries (mainly represented by China). Hospitalization rates were significantly higher for all migrant populations when compared to Italians, with the exception of those coming from HIC. Neither age nor gender seemed to modify the association of the geographic area of origin with SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization rates. IRR for SARS-CoV-2 infection of migrants compared to Italians showed how migrants from Other Asian Countries had the lowest infection rates (-53%), followed by people from HIC (-25%), North Africa (-21%), and Eastern Europe (-10%). Higher infection rates were present for Central and South America and Central and South Asia (+17% and +10, respectively). Hospitalization rates were especially high among migrants from Central and South Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, ranging from 1.84 to 3.14 times those observed for Italians. CONCLUSIONS: a significant heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization rates of migrant populations from different geographic areas of origin were observed. The significantly lower incidence rate ratio for infections, compared to that observed for hospitalizations, is suggestive of a possible under-diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among migrant populations. Public health efforts should be targeted at increasing support among migrants to contrast the spread of the pandemic by potentiating vaccination campaigns, contact tracing, and COVID-19 diagnostic tests.

Access to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests: are there barriers for the immigrants in Italy?

OBJECTIVES: to describe the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in relation with the use of nasal swabs in the immigrant population in Italy, using data from the COVID-19 national surveillance system and to verify if a difference is present comparing natives and immigrant. DESIGN: descriptive study based on longitudinal health-administrative data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: general population of six Italian Regions (Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Lazio) covering about 55% of the resident population and 72% of foreigners' population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: regional rates of access to at least a nasal swab, separately by country of origin. RESULTS: across all the periods, a lower rate in the foreigners' group was observed, with the only exception of the period May-June 2021. Considering separately High Migratory Pressure Countries (HMPCs) and Highly Developed Countries (HDCs), a higher proportion of nasal swabs performed in people coming from HDC with respect to HMPCs and natives was noticed. This observation is consistent in males and females. CONCLUSIONS: during the first wave of the pandemic, Italians have had a higher proportion of nasal swabs compared to migrants across all Regions. This difference disappeared in the following periods, probably due to a major availability of diagnostic tests.

[SARS-CoV-2 epidemic among Italians e resident immigrant population: differential incidence from an interregional multicentre study]. / L'epidemia di SARS-CoV-2 nella popolazione italiana e straniera: differenze di incidenza che emergono da uno studio multicentrico interregionale.

OBJECTIVES: to describe differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections between Italians and foreigners residing in seven Italian Regions during the different phases of the pandemic and by gender. DESIGN: retrospective observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: all confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections from 02.02. 2020 to 16.07.2021 in the seven Regions under study were included. Italian resident population calculated by the National Institute of Statistics as of 01.01.2020 was used to calculate the rates. The considered period is divided into 5 sub-periods (phases). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: number of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in the five phases of the pandemic and crude rates by citizenship (Italian vs foreign). Distribution of infections by age group and by week. Crude and age-adjusted incidence rates ratios (IRR) were calculated, by Region, gender, and phase of the pandemic. RESULTS: an epidemic curve delay was observed in foreigners in the first phase of the epidemic, in particular in the northern Regions, the most affected in that phase. The first phase of the epidemic was characterized by a greater proportion of cases occurred in people aged over 60 years than the other phases, both in Italians and in foreigners. The incidence among foreigners is higher during the summer of 2020 (intermediate period: June-September 2020) and during the last period (May-July 2021) in all Regions. The overall figure shows a lower incidence among foreigners than Italians, except for males in Tuscany. CONCLUSIONS: the lower incidence rates among foreigners should be interpreted with caution as the available data suggest that it is at least partly attributable to less access to diagnostic tests. Regional differences found in the study deserve further research together with the effect of gender and country of origin.

[Hospital assistance for COVID-19: a comparison between non-Italian and Italian resident population in five Italian Regions since the beginning of the pandemic until June 2021]. / Un confronto tra italiani e stranieri residenti nell'assistenza ospedaliera per COVID-19 in cinque Regioni italiane da inizio pandemia a giugno 2021.

OBJECTIVES: to describe trends of overall and intensive care hospitalization for COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic in Italy until June 2021, and to compare the results between foreign and Italian population. DESIGN: retrospective observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: hospital discharges of 28 million people living in Lombardy, Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna (Northern Italy), Toscana and Lazio (Central Italy) occurred between 22.02.2020 and 02.07.2021 in the hospitals located in each considered Region. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: two weekly outcomes were examined: 1. the overall number of COVID-19 hospitalizations; 2. the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations in intensive care units. RESULTS: a higher COVID-19 overall and intensive care unit hospitalization was found among the foreign population compared to Italians. The association emerged only after the adjustment for age, and it was consistent among all Regions, though less marked in Lombardy. The association varied across epidemic phases. CONCLUSIONS: the issue of vulnerability of migrants to the risk of severe COVID-19 calls for a diversity-sensitive approach in prevention. The specific country of origin and the prevalence of preventable co-morbidities that are often underestimated in the migrant populations, and related to COVID-19 complications, should be taken into consideration in future analyses.

Risk of coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization and mortality in rheumatic patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or other conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain if the use of hydroxychloroquine(HCQ)/cloroquine(CLQ) and other conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and rheumatic diseases per se may be associated with COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: This case-control study nested within a cohort of cDMARD users was conducted in the Lombardy, Veneto, Tuscany and Lazio regions and Reggio Emilia province. Claims databases were linked to COVID-19 surveillance registries. The risk of COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated using a multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis comparing HCQ/CLQ vs MTX, vs other cDMARDs and vs non-use of these drugs. The presence of rheumatic diseases vs their absence in a non-nested population was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1275 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 were matched to 12 734 controls. Compared with recent use of MTX, no association between HCQ/CLQ monotherapy and COVID-19 hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.69, 1.00)] or mortality [OR 1.19 (95% CI 0.85, 1.67)] was observed. A lower risk was found when comparing HCQ/CLQ use with the concomitant use of other cDMARDs and glucocorticoids. HCQ/CLQ was not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with non-use. An increased risk for recent use of either MTX monotherapy [OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.05, 1.34)] or other cDMARDs [OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.08, 1.36)] vs non-use was found. Rheumatic diseases were not associated with COVID-19-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCQ/CLQ use in rheumatic patients was not associated with a protective effect against COVID-19-related outcomes. The use of other cDMARDs was associated with an increased risk when compared with non-use and, if concomitantly used with glucocorticoids, also vs HCQ/CLQ, probably due to immunosuppressive action.

[Residential cohort study to assess the impact of emissions released by a cement plant on the health status of the population residing in Pederobba (Veneto Region, Northern Italy)]. / Studio di coorte residenziale per valutare l'impatto delle emissioni di un cementificio sullo stato di salute della popolazione di Pederobba (Treviso).

OBJECTIVES: to assess the impact of a cement plant emissions on mortality, hospitalizations, and cancer incidence in the residents of the municipality of Pederobba (Veneto Region, Northern Italy). DESIGN: retrospective residential cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the study was conducted in Pederobba and in 7 neighbouring municipalities (Cavaso Del Tomba, Cornuda, Crocetta del Montello, Monfumo, Segusino, Valdobbiadene, Vidor). The cohort included 12,116 residents in Pederobba (151,784 person-years) and 49,004 residents in the neighbouring municipalities (660,268 person-years) in the period 1996-2017. On the basis of the model estimate of the annual average concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), the municipality of Pederobba was divided into an area with higher exposure of NO2 and another one at lower exposure of NO2. Two comparisons were made: the first between the residents in Pederobba and residents in the neighbouring municipalities; the second between people residing in Pederobba in the higher and in the lower exposure areas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: analysis of cause-specific mortality and hospitalization and cancer incidence, with particular attention to the diseases for which there is evidence of association with exposure to air-pollutants. For cancer incidence, available data were limited to the municipalities of Pederobba, Cavaso Del Tomba, Cornuda, Crocetta del Montello, and Monfumo for the period 1996-2015. RESULTS: the comparison among Pederobba and the 7 neighbouring municipalities showed that within Pederobba residents there was:ʉۢ a slight increase in the risk of death from all causes in women, due to circulatory diseases (HR 1.29; 95%CI 1.15-1.45), in particular ischaemic heart disease (HR 1.55; 1.27-1.89) and cerebrovascular diseases (HR 1.35; 1.06-1.72);ʉۢ a moderate increase in hospitalizations for circulatory diseases, such as heart failure (HR 1.17; 1.00-1.37) and cerebrovascular diseases (HR 1.41; 1.17 -1.70), especially in elderly women;ʉۢ a slight increase in hospitalizations for respiratory diseases, especially in older women (HR 1.19; 1.04-1.37);ʉۢ no difference were observed in cancer incidence, neither for all nor for single cancer sites, in both genders.The comparison between residents in the higher exposure area and those in the lower exposure area showed no difference in mortality, hospitalizations, and cancer incidence. CONCLUSIONS: higher mortality and hospitalization rates from circulatory and respiratory causes detected in Pederobba compared to the neighbouring municipalities were not confirmed by the comparison between residents in the higher and in the lower exposure area. Overall, data did not show a clear, well-characterized relationship between the exposure to pollutants emitted by the cement plant and the onset of chronic diseases. The excess of mortality and hospitalization for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, reported especially in older women, deserves further investigation, because of the complex cause-effect relations of these diseases.

Impact of laparoscopic approach on the short-term outcomes of elderly patients with colorectal cancer: a nationwide Italian experience.

INTRODUCTION: The laparoscopic approach is increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer surgery; however, its role in elderly patients is controversial. We sought to examine the relationship between age and short-term outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Data of patients 65 + years old who underwent laparoscopic surgery for CRC between 2002 and 2014 were retrieved from the administrative National Italian Hospital Discharge Dataset. Patients were divided into three age categories (65-74, 75-84, and 85 +). The impact of age on length of stay, 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, and postoperative complications was evaluated. RESULTS: During the study period, 47,704 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for CRC. The median postoperative length of stay was 9 days, and 30-day readmission and in-hospital mortality were 4.4% and 0.9%, respectively. Age was found to be an independent risk factor of prolonged length of stay and increased in-hospital mortality. With respect to patients in 65-74 years age category, patients aged 75-84 years and those aged 85 + years had a higher risk of complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.36-1.50, and OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.83-2.17, respectively). However, no statistically significant association was found between age and anastomotic leakage or surgical site infection (p = 0.29, and p = 0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CRC who underwent laparoscopic surgery, age was found to be an independent risk factor for prolonged length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and global postoperative complications. These findings should be considered when planning laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

[Covid-19 and clinical-epidemiological research in Italy: proposal of a research agenda on priority topics by the Italian association of epidemiology]. / Covid-19 e ricerca clinico-epidemiologica in Italia: proposta di un'agenda di ricerca su temi prioritari da parte dell'Associazione italiana di epidemiologia.

BACKGROUND: the Covid-19 pandemic has provoked a huge of clinical and epidemiological research initiatives, especially in the most involved countries. However, this very large effort was characterized by several methodological weaknesses, both in the field of discovering effective treatments (with too many small and uncontrolled trials) and in the field of identifying preventable risks and prognostic factors (with too few large, representative and well-designed cohorts or case-control studies). OBJECTIVES: in response to the fragmented and uncoordinated research production on Covid-19, the   italian Association of Epidemiology (AIE) stimulated the formation of a working group (WG) with the aims of identifying the most important gaps in knowledge and to propose a structured research agenda of clinical and epidemiological studies considered at high priority on Covid-19, including recommendations on the preferable methodology. METHODS: the WG was composed by 25 subjects, mainly epidemiologists, statisticians, and other experts in specific fields, who have voluntarily agreed to the proposal. The agreement on a list of main research questions and on the structure of the specific documents to be produced were defined through few meetings and cycles of document exchanges. RESULTS: twelve main research questions on Covid-19 were identified, covering aetiology, prognosis, interventions, follow-up and impact on general and specific populations (children, pregnant women). For each of them, a two-page form was developed, structured in: background, main topics, methods (with recommendations on preferred study design and warnings for bias prevention) and an essential bibliography. CONCLUSIONS: this research agenda represents an initial contribution to direct clinical and epidemiological research efforts on high priority topics with a focus on methodological aspects. Further development and refinements of this agenda by Public Health Authorities are encouraged.

Evidence and strategies for malaria prevention and control: a historical analysis.

Public health strategies for malaria in endemic countries aim to prevent transmission of the disease and control the vector. This historical analysis considers the strategies for vector control developed during the first four decades of the twentieth century. In 1925, policies and technological advances were debated internationally for the first time after the outbreak of malaria in Europe which followed World War I. This dialogue had implications for policies in Europe, Russia and the Middle East, and influenced the broader international control agenda. The analysis draws on the advances made before 1930, and includes the effects of mosquito-proofing of houses; the use of larvicides (Paris Green) and larvivorous fish (Gambusia); the role of large-scale engineering works; and the emergence of biological approaches to malaria. The importance of strong government and civil servant support was outlined. Despite best efforts of public health authorities, it became clear that it was notoriously difficult to interrupt transmission in areas of moderately high transmission. The importance of combining a variety of measures to achieve control became clear and proved successful in Palestine between 1923 and 1925, and improved education, economic circumstances and sustained political commitment emerge as key factors in the longer term control of malaria. The analysis shows that the principles for many of the present public health strategies for malaria have nearly all been defined before 1930, apart from large scale usage of pesticides, which came later at the end of the Second World War. No single intervention provided an effective single answer to preventing transmission, but certainly approaches taken that are locally relevant and applied in combination, are relevant to today's efforts at elimination.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Intensity of integrated cancer palliative care plans and end-of-life acute medical hospitalisation among cancer patient in Northern Italy.

A high hospital utilisation at the end of life (EOL) is an indicator of suboptimal quality of health care. We evaluated the impact of the intensity of different Integrated Cancer Palliative Care (ICPC) plans on EOL acute medical hospitalisation among cancer decedents. Decedents of cancer aged 18-84 years, who were residents in two Italian regions, were investigated through integrated administrative data. Outcomes considered were prolonged hospital stay for medical reasons, 2+ hospitalisations during the last month of life and hospital death. The ICPC plans instituted 90 to 31 days before death represented the main exposure of interest. Other variables considered were gender, age class at death, marital status, recent hospitalisation and primary cancer site. Among 6,698 patients included in ICPC plans, 44.3% presented at least one critical outcome indicator; among these, 76.5% died in hospital, 60.3% had a prolonged (12+ days) medical hospitalisation, 19.1% had 2+ hospitalisations at the EOL. These outcomes showed a strong dose-response effect with the intensity of the ICPC plans, which is already evident at levels of moderate intensity. A well-ICPC approach can be very effective-beginning at low levels of intensity of care-in reducing the percentage of patients spending many days or dying in hospital.

Excess mortality in 2015: a time series and cause-of-death analysis in Northern Italy.

AIMS: To investigate the excess mortality registered in the Veneto Region (Northern Italy) in 2015. METHODS: A Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Model was applied to predict overall mortality expected in 2014-2015 based on that observed in 2000-2013. The annual percent change in age-standardized rates (APC) was estimated for specific causes of death in 2007-2015. RESULTS: Compared to 2014, the number of deaths and the overall age-standardized mortality increased in 2015 by 7.8 and 4.5%, respectively. When accounting for time trends, the observed mortality was lower than expected in 2014 (-4.5%) and slightly higher in 2015 (+1.1%). In 2015, mortality increased especially for causes with an already rising trend: neurologic/psychiatric (APC = 1.2; 95% Confidence Interval 0.3-2.0%) and infectious diseases (APC = 5.9; 3.6-8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term changes and long-term trends in mortality must be interpreted within the frame of a rapid growth in the population of elderly subjects affected by multiple comorbidities.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally, while healthy adults are targeted in North America. OBJECTIVES: To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects (efficacy, effectiveness and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013) and EMBASE (1990 to May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 reports containing 116 data sets; among these 69 were clinical trials of over 70,000 people, 27 were comparative cohort studies (about eight million people) and 20 were case-control studies (nearly 25,000 people). We retrieved 23 reports of the effectiveness and safety of vaccine administration in pregnant women (about 1.6 million mother-child couples).The overall effectiveness of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited, corresponding to a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128). The overall efficacy of inactivated vaccines in preventing confirmed influenza has a NNV of 71 (95% CI 64 to 80). The difference between these two values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations: 15.6% of unvaccinated participants versus 9.9% of vaccinated participants developed ILI symptoms, whilst only 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively, developed laboratory-confirmed influenza.No RCTs assessing vaccination in pregnant women were found. The only evidence available comes from observational studies with modest methodological quality. On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects: NNV 92 (95% CI 63 to 201) against ILI in pregnant women and NNV 27 (95% CI 18 to 185) against laboratory-confirmed influenza in newborns from vaccinated women.Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to a NNV 46 (95% CI 29 to 115).The performance of one-dose or two-dose whole virion pandemic vaccines was higher, showing a NNV of 16 (95% CI 14 to 20) against ILI and a NNV of 35 (95% CI 33 to 47) against influenza, while a limited impact on hospitalisation was found (NNV 94, 95% CI 70 to 1022).Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms. No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population, including pregnant women. No evidence of association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events was found in the comparative studies considered in the review. This review includes 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs, 17 were industry-funded (35.4%).