A municipality-level analysis of excess mortality in Italy in the period January-April 2020.

BACKGROUND: the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 in WHO European Region was reported at the end of January 2020 and, from that moment, the epidemic has been speeding up and rapidly spreading across Europe. The health, social, and economic consequences of the pandemic are difficult to evaluate, since there are many scientific uncertainties and unknowns. OBJECTIVES: the main focus of this paper is on statistical methods for profiling municipalities by excess mortality, directly or indirectly caused by COVID-19. METHODS: the use of excess mortality for all causes has been advocated as a measure of impact less vulnerable to biases. In this paper, observed mortality for all causes at municipality level in Italy in the period January-April 2020 was compared to the mortality observed in the corresponding period in the previous 5 years (2015-2019). Mortality data were made available by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Italian National Resident Population Demographic Archive and the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat). For each municipality, the posterior predictive distribution under a hierarchical null model was obtained. From the posterior predictive distribution, we obtained excess death counts, attributable community rates and q-values. Full Bayesian models implemented via MCMC simulations were used. RESULTS: absolute number of excess deaths highlights the burden paid by major cities to the pandemic. The Attributable Community Rate provides a detailed picture of the spread of the pandemic among the municipalities of Lombardy, Piedmont, and Emilia-Romagna Regions. Using Q-values, it is clearly recognizable evidence of an excess of mortality from late February to April 2020 in a very geographically scattered number of municipalities. A trade-off between false discoveries and false non-discoveries shows the different values of public health actions. CONCLUSIONS: despite the variety of approaches to calculate excess mortality, this study provides an original methodological approach to profile municipalities with excess deaths accounting for spatial and temporal uncertainty.

Strategia vaccinale in un contesto incerto e in costante evoluzione.

Politics is facing the need to make important decisions about anti-COVID-19 vaccination campaign in uncertain and changing contexts. With reference to the time frame between the administration of the first and second dose, the scientific evidence is still weak and comes from different contexts. New ways to collect and synthesize expert knowledge and opinions are needed with the direct involvement of the citizens in order to explain the uncertainties and maintain trust in institutions and their decisions.

Role of meteorological factors on SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence in Italy and Spain before the vaccination campaign. A multi-city time series study.

Numerous studies have been conducted worldwide to investigate if an association exists between meteorological factors and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection incidence. Although research studies provide conflicting results, which can be partially explained by different methods used, some clear trends emerge on the role of weather conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially for temperature and humidity. This study sheds more light on the relationship between meteorological factors and SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence in 23 Italian and 52 Spanish cities. For the purposes of this study, daily air temperature, absolute and relative humidity, wind speed, ultraviolet radiation, and rainfall are considered exposure variables. We conducted a two-stage meta-regression. In the first stage, we estimated the exposure-response association through time series regression analysis at the municipal level. In the second stage, we pooled the association parameters using a meta-analytic model. The study demonstrates an association between meteorological factors and SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence. Specifically, low levels of ambient temperatures and absolute humidity were associated with an increased relative risk. On the other hand, low and high levels of relative humidity and ultraviolet radiation were associated with a decreased relative risk. Concerning wind speed and rainfall, higher values contributed to the reduction of the risk of infection. Overall, our results contribute to a better understanding of how the meteorological factors influence the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 and should be considered in a wider context of existing robust literature that highlight the importance of measures such as social distancing, improved hygiene, face masks and vaccination campaign.

Research is in the air in Valle del Serchio

In this paper, we will present an ongoing Citizen Science (CS) project in environmental epidemiology in five European countries focussing on the Italian pilot study conducted in the Serchio Valley (Tuscany). The area is rich in natural, cultural and historic significance, but it also suffers from environmental contamination from a variety of sources, including industry, which is a health concern for the local population. The study is framed as a Post-Normal Science (PNS) project, applying, in particular, the idea of extended peer community (EPC). The research team looked for and encouraged the engagement of local residents in all the phases of the project, from the framing of the problem to the definition of the specific research questions, the research design, the collection and analysis of data, the dissemination of results, and the drafting of policy recommendations. We discuss the novelty of our approach, the progress so far, the different types of challenges encountered and the strategies adopted to deal with them. Besides the totally unexpected problems generated by the COVID-19 pandemics, we focus on the difficulty in conforming to the requirements of standard medical ethics, which do not take into account the peculiarities of projects such as ours.

Is it possible to conduct clinical trials during a pandemic? The example of a trial of hydroxychloroquine.

OBJECTIVES: to examine the factors that, in the context of the current pandemic, have influenced the conduct of a randomized clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine in Italy. DESIGN: the trend of enrolment in the PROTECT study, "A randomized study with Hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)" (Eudract number: 2020-001501-24, NCT04363827), conducted in the period from May to September 2020, was analysed to evaluate the possible association of the enrolment rate with the amount of information published in the national and local press on hydroxychloroquine. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the PROTECT clinical study is an Italian interventional superiority study, open label, with cluster randomization, aimed at evaluating whether treatment with hydroxychloroquine can reduce the percentage of symptomatic subjects compared to observation only in a population of subjects exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus consisting of cohabitants/contacts of COVID-19 patients and asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects diagnosed with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the number of asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients and the number of contacts/cohabitants of COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Protect study from May to September 2020. RESULTS: from May to September 2020, the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 enrolled in the PROTECT clinical trial showed a decrease consistent with the number of news on hydroxychloroquine appearing in the national and local press, starting from the time when the first criticisms of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were made known; the number of contacts/cohabitants of COVID-19 patients showed a more marked and more timely decrease. CONCLUSIONS: in the context determined by the current COVID-19 pandemic, conducting a controlled clinical trial is strongly influenced by public opinion on scientific issues. Adherence to a clinical study can become highly problematic and invalidate the possibility of answering a scientific question and the validity of a project. In the current pandemic situation, randomized controlled trials may not always be the optimal tool to reach the expected scientific evidence, due to a number of problems. It is preferable to use a sequential or adaptive design. Furthermore, study protocols should implement innovative approaches that also include the involvement of participants in the decision-making process. In any case, the influence of public information on scientific issues is an extremely important factor to consider in the design of clinical trials in exceptional situations such as a pandemic.

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Mortality for COVID-19: A Spatial Ecological Analysis in the Veneto Region (Italy).

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is interest in assessing if per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposures are associated with any increased risk of COVID-19 or its severity, given the evidence of immunosuppression by some PFAS. The objective of this paper is to evaluate at the ecological level if a large area (Red Zone) of the Veneto Region, where residents were exposed for decades to drinking water contaminated by PFAS, showed higher mortality for COVID-19 than the rest of the region. METHODS: We fitted a Bayesian ecological regression model with spatially and not spatially structured random components on COVID-19 mortality at the municipality level (period between 21 February and 15 April 2020). The model included education score, background all-cause mortality (for the years 2015-2019), and an indicator for the Red Zone. The two random components are intended to adjust for potential hidden confounders. RESULTS: The COVID-19 crude mortality rate ratio for the Red Zone was 1.55 (90% Confidence Interval 1.25; 1.92). From the Bayesian ecological regression model adjusted for education level and baseline all-cause mortality, the rate ratio for the Red Zone was 1.60 (90% Credibility Interval 0.94; 2.51). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we observed a higher mortality risk for COVID-19 in a population heavily exposed to PFAS, which was possibly explained by PFAS immunosuppression, bioaccumulation in lung tissue, or pre-existing disease being related to PFAS.

The risk of over-diagnosis in serological testing. Implications for communications strategies.

BACKGROUND: since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of developing a serological test has emerged and a debate on test accuracy and reliability become an issue widely discussed in the media. The importance of communication during this pandemic has been strongly underlined by public health experts, epidemiologists, media expert, psychologists, sociologists. In the case of serological tests, there are several aspects that have to be considered: why we perform the test, what population is tested, which are the parameters conditioning the results and their interpretation. OBJECTIVES: to show how to quantify the uncertainty related to the validity of the serological test with respect to its predictive value and in particular the positive predictive value. METHODS: the evaluation of a qualitative diagnostic test includes four distinct assessments: accuracy, empirical evidence, practical importance, and prevalence of the pathology. Accuracy is measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the test; empirical evidence is quantified by the likelihood ratio, respectively for a positive and negative test result; the practical importance of the result of a diagnostic test is assessed by the positive or negative predictive value. Prevalence of COVID-19 is substantial uncertainty and it is possible to estimate the apparent prevalence starting from the results obtained with a diagnostic test. RESULTS: at the moment, the knowledge about the accuracy of serological tests is limited and little attention is paid to confidence interval on point estimates. In terms of practical importance of testing at individual level, while negative predictive values are high whatever the level of sensitivity of the test, the interpretation of a positive results is very cumbersome. Positive predictive values above 90% can be reached only by tests with specificity above 99% at the expected prevalence rate of 5%. There is a linear relationship between apparent - testing positive - prevalence and real prevalence. The apparent prevalence in the context of serological test for COVID-19 is always larger than real prevalence. The level of specificity is crucial. CONCLUSIONS: the main applications of the serological test in the epidemic contest are: to study the seroprevalence of the virus antibodies in the general population; to screen the healthcare workers for the early identification of contagious subjects' health care settings and to screen the general population in order to identify new incident cases. In the first two cases, seroprevalence study and screening of a high-risk population, the consequences of the uncertainty associated to the statistics are already accounted for in the first situation, or are overcome by repeating the screening on the healthcare workers, and using the molecular test to verify the presence of the virus in those tested positive. The case of screening of general population is more complex and of major interest for the implication it may have on individual behaviours and on the implementation of public health interventions by the political decision makers. A positive result has, per se, no practical value for individuals since the probability of being really infected by the virus is low. The uncertainty associated with the different estimates (sensitivity, specificity and disease prevalence) play a double role: it is a key factor in defining the informative content of the test result and it might guide the individual actions and the public policy decisions.

PROTECT Trial: A cluster-randomized study with hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early-phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2. It is believed to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus cell fusion and glycosylation of viral surface proteins. In addition to its antiviral activity, hydroxychloroquine has an immune-modulating activity that may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo, making it a potentially promising drug for the prevention and the cure of SARS-CoV-19. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether it can be used safely to treat COVID-19 patients or to prevent infection. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for (I) the prevention of COVID-19 or related symptoms in SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, such as as household members/contacts of COVID-19 patients and (II) the treatment of early-phase asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a controlled, open label, cluster-randomized, superiority trial with parallel group design. Subjects will be randomized either to receive hydroxychloroquine or to observation (2:1). PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, including household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients and healthcare professionals (Group 1) or patients with COVID-19 (positive PCR test on a rhinopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2), asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic in home situations who are not undergoing treatment with any anti COVID-19 medication (Group 2), will be enrolled. Paucisymptomatic patients are defined as patients with a low number of mild symptoms. All subjects must be aged ≥18 years, male or female, must be willing and able to give informed consent and must not have any contraindications to take hydroxychloroquine (intolerance or previous toxicity for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, bradycardia or reduction in heart rhythm with arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, congestive heart failure with use of diuretics, favism or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, diabetes type 1, major comorbidities such as advanced chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, known history of ventricular arrhythmia, any oncologic/hematologic malignancy, severe neurological and mental illness, current use of medications with known significant drug-drug interactions, and known prolonged QT syndrome or current use of drugs with known QT prolongation). The study is monocentric and will be conducted at Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS. Subjects will be enrolled from a large epidemic region (North-Central Italy). The Public Health Departments of several Italian regions will collaborate by identifying potentially eligible subjects. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The participants will be randomized (2:1 randomization) to receive either hydroxychloroquine (Arm A) or to Observation (Arm B). Hydroxychloroquine will be administered with the following schedule: Group1: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1, followed by a weekly dose of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily on days 8, 15 and 22, for a total of one month of treatment. Group 2: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for a total of 5-7 days. The comparator in this trial is observation given that currently neither treatment is administered to asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects, nor prophylaxis is available for contacts. Hydroxychloroquine will be shipped to subjects within 24 hours of randomization. Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, only telephonic interviews will be carried out and electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO) completed. During treatment, each subject will be contacted every other day for the first week and weekly thereafter (Group 2) or weekly (Group 1) by a study physician to assess early onset of any COVID-19 symptom or any adverse reaction to hydroxychloroquine and to check subject compliance. Furthermore, all subjects will receive periodic ePROs which may be completed through smartphone or tablets to record drug self-administration and onset of any symptom or adverse event. All subjects will be followed up for a total of 6 months by periodic telephonic interviews and ePROs. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint/outcome measure for this trial is: for Group 1, the proportion of subjects who become symptomatic and/or swab-positive in each arm within one month of randomization; for Group 2, the proportion of subjects who become swab-negative in each arm within 14 days of randomization. RANDOMIZATION: All household members and/or contacts of each COVID-19 index case, and the COVID-19 patient himself/herself, fulfilling all inclusion criteria will be grouped into a single cluster and this cluster will be randomized (2:1) to either arm A or arm B. Information on each subject will be recorded in specific data records. Randomization lists will be stratified according to the following factors regarding COVID-19 index cases: 1. COVID-19 risk level on the basis of province of residence (high vs. low/intermediate); 2. Index case is a healthcare professional (yes vs.no) 3. Index case with COVID-19 treatment (yes vs. no) An independent statistician not otherwise involved in the trial will generate the allocation sequence, and COVID-19 response teams will be unaware of the allocation of clusters. Randomization will be performed through an interactive web-based electronic data-capturing database. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee has been established. BLINDING (MASKING): This study is open label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): For Group 1, a sample size of about 2000 SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects such as household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients will take part in the study. Assuming around 1.5-2.0 asymptomatic household members and/or contacts for each COVID-19 patient, we expect to identify approximately 1000-1300 COVID-19 index cases to be randomized. An interim analysis on efficacy is planned using standard alpha-spending function. For Group 2, sufficient power for primary objective (negative swab within 14 days of randomization) will be reached given a sample size of 300 asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in home situations not treated for COVID-19 (25%-30% of about 1000-1300 expected index cases). Since up to date reduced evidence about COVID-19 infection epidemiology, the continuous update of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the sample size estimation could be updated after a one third of population will be recruited and eventually modified according to a substantial protocol amendment. An interim analysis at 100 enrolled COVID-19 patients is planned. We have planned a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis, which is more efficient than a cluster level analysis, to take advantage of subject-specific covariates. The above reported sample size analysis is therefore to be considered conservative. TRIAL STATUS: The current version of the PROTECT trial protocol is 'Final version, 15 April 2020'. The study started on 9th May 2020. The first patient was enrolled on 14th May 2020. Recruitment is expected to last through September 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROTECT trial is registered in the EudraCT database (no. 2020-001501-24) and in ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04363827 ), date of registration 24 April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full PROTECT protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Protocol final version, 15th April 2020). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

[Post-Normal Pandemics: why CoViD-19 requires a new approach to science.] / Pandemie post-normali. Perché CoViD-19 richiede un nuovo approccio alla scienza.

In addressing pandemics, science has never seemed more needed and useful, while at the same time limited and powerless. The existing contract between science and society is falling apart. A new covenant is urgently needed to navigate the days ahead.