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

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Cost-Effectiveness of First- and Second-Step Treatment Strategies for Major Depressive Disorder : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect. PURPOSE: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022). STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available. CONCLUSION: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder. PURPOSE: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020212442).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments. DATA SOURCES: The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified. LIMITATION: Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. DATA SOURCES: Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo. LIMITATION: Many outcomes had few events and small samples. CONCLUSION: Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. LIMITATIONS: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 µg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 µg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 µg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 µg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.

Placenta-associated adverse pregnancy outcomes in women experiencing mild or severe hyperemesis gravidarum - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects 50-80% of pregnant women and is correlated to the level of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a severe condition, with an incidence of 0.2-1.5%, characterized by consistent nausea, vomiting, weight loss and dehydration continuing after the second trimester. AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate a potential correlation between NVP or HG with adverse pregnancy outcomes and hCG levels. METHOD: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CINAHL Complete was conducted. Studies on pregnant women with nausea in the first or second trimester, reporting either pregnancy outcomes or levels of hCG were included. The primary outcomes were preterm delivery (PTD), preeclampsia, miscarriage, and fetal growth restriction. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2023 potentially relevant studies; 23 were included. The evidence was uncertain for all outcomes, however women with HG had a tendency to have an increased risk for preeclampsia [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.35], PTD [OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61], small for gestational age (SGA) [OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.35], and low birth weight (LBW) [OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.44]. Further, a higher fetal female/male ratio was observed [OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60]. Meta-analyses were not performed for women with NVP; however, most of these studies indicated that women with NVP have a lower risk for PTD and LBW and a higher risk for SGA, and a higher fetal female/male ratio. CONCLUSION: There may be an increased risk in women with HG and a decreased risk in women with NVP for adverse placenta-associated pregnancy outcomes, however the evidence is very uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021281218.

Does saffron supplementation have favorable effects on liver function indicators? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Several pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical approaches have been suggested to improve liver health. There is a large discrepancy in the effects of saffron supplementation on liver function in adults. To fill this knowledge gap, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assess the effects of saffron supplementation on liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). A systematic search current to August 2020 was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords to detect eligible articles. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence (95% CI). Nine eligible trials were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that serum ALT concentrations were significantly reduced using saffron compared to placebo (WMD: -2.39 U/L; 95% CI: -4.57 to -0.22; P = 0.03, I2= 87.9%, P < 0.001). However, saffron supplementation did not affect levels of serum AST (WMD: 1.12 U/L; 95% CI: -1.42 to 3.65; P = 0.39) or ALP (WMD: 4.32 U/L; 95% CI: -6.91 to 15.54; P = 0.78). In the dose-response analysis, we did not find a significant dose-response relationship between dosage and duration of saffron supplementation on serum levels of ALT, AST, and ALP. We found that saffron supplementation can reduce ALT serum concentrations without significant effects on other liver function indicators, including AST and ALP. Nevertheless, future large RCTs on diverse populations are needed to understand better the effects of saffron and its constituents on these enzymes.

The effects of Anethum graveolens (dill) supplementation on lipid profile and glycemic control: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

There is an increased interest in the potential health benefits of nutraceutical therapies, such as Anethum graveolens (dill). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of Anethum graveolens supplementation on lipid profiles and glycemic indices in adults. A systematic search was performed for literature published through November 2020 via PubMed/Medline, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Embase to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of oral supplementation with A. graveolens on lipid profile and measures of glycemic control in adults. The random-effects model was applied to establish the weighted mean difference (WMD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Seven RCTs with a total number of 330 subjects were included in the final analysis. Pooled results indicated that A. graveolens supplementation significantly decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) concentration (WMD: -15.64 mg/dL; 95% CI: -24.55 to -6.73; P = 0.001), serum insulin (WMD: -2.28 µU/ml; 95% CI: -3.62 to -0.93; P = 0.001), and HOMA-IR (WMD: -1.06; 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.20; P = 0.01). However, there was no significant effect on serum total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and fasting blood glucose (FBS). Subgroup analysis suggested that using A. graveolens in higher doses and long-term duration had beneficial effects on lipid profiles. Dose-response analysis also showed a significant reduction in FBS at doses of 1500 mg/d. The present meta-analysis indicated that Anethum graveolens could exert favorable effects on insulin resistance and serum LDL. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

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

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

Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men.

BACKGROUND: Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

Mothers and their children's health (MATCH): a study protocol for a population-based longitudinal cohort.

BACKGROUND: The quality of prenatal care is critical for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), only 64 % of women worldwide have access to over four sessions of prenatal care throughout their pregnancy. Thus, studies that address factors affecting maternal and child health status before and after pregnancy are of immense importance. The primary aim of the mothers and their children's health (MATCH) cohort study is to evaluate the effect of nutrition, sleep quality, and lifestyle on maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: A prospective cohort of > 2500 pregnant women in the first trimester (before 12 weeks' gestation) will be recruited at Arash Women's Hospital in Tehran, Iran between February 2020 and August 2021. All eligible pregnant women will be followed from their first trimester of pregnancy until delivery at four time points and assessed through a series of in-person visits with interviewer-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Detailed data will be collected on maternal demographics, lifestyle, medical history, reproductive history, obstetric history, dietary intake, sleep pattern, blood specimens, and anthropometric measurements, alongside paternal demographics, lifestyle, and family history. The outcomes will include antenatal, peripartum, and postnatal maternal complications and infant growth and neurodevelopment. DISCUSSION: The results of the MATCH cohort study will support the development of contextual interventions that can enhance antenatal, peripartum, and postnatal status, neonatal outcomes, and longevity mother and child.

Neonatal sepsis prediction through clinical decision support algorithms: A systematic review.

AIM: To systematically summarise the current evidence of employing clinical decision support algorithms (CDSAs) using non-invasive parameters for sepsis prediction in neonates. METHODS: A comprehensive search in PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE was conducted. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias were performed by two authors. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020205143. RESULTS: After abstract and full-text screening, 36 studies comprising 18,096 infants were included. Most CDSAs evaluated heart rate (HR)-based parameters. Two publications derived from one randomised-controlled trial assessing HR characteristics reported significant reduction in 30-day septicaemia-related mortality. Thirty-four non-randomised studies found promising yet inconclusive results. CONCLUSION: Heart rate-based parameters are reliable components of CDSAs for sepsis prediction, particularly in combination with additional vital signs and demographics. However, inconclusive evidence and limited standardisation restricts clinical implementation of CDSAs outside of a controlled research environment. Further experimentation and comparison of parameter combinations and testing of new CDSAs are warranted.

What is the influence of cinnamon supplementation on liver enzymes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Existing evidence has uncovered the potential health benefits of cinnamon intake; however, its effect on liver function is unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of cinnamon supplementation on liver enzymes. Relevant articles were identified through a systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase up to September 2020. All trials assessing the effect of oral cinnamon supplementation on serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in adults were included. The pooled effect sizes were obtained using the random-effects model and expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of seven original trials (nine treatment arms) involving a total of 256 subjects were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that cinnamon supplementation had no significant effect on serum levels of ALT, AST, and ALP. However, there was a significant reduction in ALT levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (MD: -4.01 U/L; 95% CI: -6.86, -1.15) and in trials with low-dose supplementation (<1,500 mg/d), follow-up duration longer than 12 weeks, and in the elderly patients (aged>50 years). The beneficial effects of cinnamon intake were also shown in AST levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and trials with long-term follow-up (>12 weeks). Longer-term, oral cinnamon supplementation may improve serum levels of liver enzymes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further high-quality studies are needed, especially in populations with abnormal liver enzyme levels, to firmly establish the clinical efficacy of cinnamon on liver function.

The effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on inflammatory factors in HIV-infected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

High concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and inflammatory markers are common in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients and are associated with non-HIV related comorbidity and mortality. Data on the benefits of omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3 FA) supplementation for improving inflammation status in HIV-infected patients are controversial. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the beneficial effects of omega-3 FAs on controlling inflammation in HIV-infected patients. We conducted a comprehensive search of the major biomedical databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane library, for all potentially relevant studies published without restriction from the beginning of time to June 2020. Overall, nine RCTs were included comprising a total of 427 participants. A random-effects model was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the effect was measured as standardized mean difference (SMD). Supplementation of omega-3 FAs showed a significant reduction of CRP (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.07, P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in levels of TNF-α (SMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.79 to 0.85, P = 0.94, I2 = 87%) and IL-6 (SMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.32, P = 0.57, I2 = 73%, Fig. 3). The results indicate that the supplementation of omega-3 FAs in HIV-infected patients significantly decreases serum CRP levels when compared to the control group, however has no significant effect on IL-6 and TNF-α levels.

Effect of melatonin supplementation on oxidative stress parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress, defined as an imbalance between pro-oxidants and neutralizing antioxidants within the body, is a growing public health concern. Oxidative stress is involved in the progression of nearly all chronic diseases. Melatonin has been suggested to reduce oxidative stress by its potential radical scavenging properties. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of melatonin as a therapy for the improvement of oxidative stress parameters in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic database search using Scopus, PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov) for studies published up to July 2020 was conducted. We included studies which investigated the effect of supplemental melatonin compared to placebo on oxidative stress parameters in unhealthy patients. Quantitative data synthesis was conducted using a random-effects model with standard mean difference (SMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane's Q and I2 values were used to evaluate heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible. The meta-analysis indicated an association between melatonin intake and a significant increase in total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (SMD: 0.76; 95 % CI: 0.30, 1.21; I2 = 80.1 %), glutathione (GSH) levels (SMD: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.32, 0.83; I2 = 15.1 %), superoxide dismutase (SOD) (SMD: 1.38; 95 % CI: 0.13, 2.62; I2 = 86.9 %), glutathione peroxidase (GPx) (SMD: 1.36; 95 % CI: 0.46, 2.30; I2 = 89.3 %), glutathione reductase (GR) (SMD: 1.21; 95 % CI: 0.65, 1.77; I2 = 00.0 %) activities, and a significant reduction in malondialdehyde (MDA) levels (SMD: -0.79; 95 % CI: -1.19, -0.39; I2 = 73.1 %). Melatonin intake was not shown to significantly affect nitric oxide (NO) levels (SMD: -0.24; 95 % CI: -0.61, 0.14; I2 = 00.0 %) or catalase (CAT) activity (SMD: -1.38; 95 % CI: -1.42, 4.18; I2 = 96.6 %). CONCLUSION: Melatonin intake was shown to have a significant impact on improving Oxidative stress parameters. However, future research through large, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to determine the effect of melatonin on oxidative stress parameters in different age groups and different disease types.

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.

Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy. Effectiveness of screening We included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening. Screening test accuracy All 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement. We assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples. For single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR. Given the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers.

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.