Interactions between complementary medicines and drugs used in primary care and oral COVID-19 antiviral drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patient harm resulting from drug interactions between conventional and traditional or complementary medicines (CM) are avoidable. OBJECTIVE: To provide a clinical overview of a selection of CM interactions with drugs commonly used in Australian general practice or in the management of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Many herb constituents are substrates for cytochrome P450 enzymes, and inducers and/or inhibitors of transporters such as P-glycoprotein. Hypericum perforatum (St John's Wort), Hydrastis canadensis (golden seal), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo) and Allium sativum (garlic) are reported to interact with many drugs. Simultaneous administration of certain anti-viral drugs with zinc compounds and several herbs should also be avoided. Preventing and identifying unwanted CM-drug interactions in primary care requires vigilance, access to CM-drug interaction checkers and excellent communication skills. Potential risks from interactions should be balanced against the potential benefits of continuing the drug and/or CM and involve shared decision making.

Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Nursing Homes during Periods of Delta and Omicron Predominance, United States, July 2021-March 2022.

SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated nursing home residents increased after the Omicron variant emerged. Data on booster dose effectiveness in this population are limited. During July 2021-March 2022, nursing home outbreaks in 11 US jurisdictions involving >3 infections within 14 days among residents who had received at least the primary COVID-19 vaccine(s) were monitored. Among 2,188 nursing homes, 1,247 outbreaks were reported in the periods of Delta (n = 356, 29%), mixed Delta/Omicron (n = 354, 28%), and Omicron (n = 536, 43%) predominance. During the Omicron-predominant period, the risk for infection within 14 days of an outbreak start was lower among boosted residents than among residents who had received the primary vaccine series alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.19-0.33). Once infected, boosted residents were at lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40-0.49) and death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59) than primary vaccine-only residents.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks in nursing homes involving residents who had completed a primary coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine series-13 US jurisdictions, July-November 2021.

Among nursing home outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ≥3 breakthrough infections when the predominant severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant circulating was the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant, fully vaccinated residents were 28% less likely to be infected than were unvaccinated residents. Once infected, they had approximately half the risk for all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death compared with unvaccinated infected residents.

CDC COVID-19 healthcare infection prevention and control assistance to health departments, January 2020–December 2021

Background: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP) has provided technical assistance in support of state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments for COVID-19 healthcare outbreak management and infection prevention and control (IPC). We characterized the volume and trends of technical assistance provided during the pandemic to inform the future needs of health departments for COVID-19 healthcare IPC and DHQP resources required to meet these needs. Methods: In January 2020, DHQP began receiving COVID-19 IPC TA requests directly from health departments for remote assistance or from CDC staff on field deployments providing onsite support. DHQP subject-matter experts provided responses via e-mail or, for more complex inquiries, outbreaks, or field deployments, via phone consultations. Records of e-mail communications and phone consultations were entered into an inquiry database for tracking. We calculated the number, mean, and range of technical-assistance responses by jurisdiction and by month from January 2020 through December 2021. We designated months as high-volume periods for technical assistance if inquiries surpassed the 75th percentile. Results: In total, 1,869 IPC technical-assistance responses were provided. Of all technical-assistance responses, 1,725 (92%) were to state or local health departments, 115 (6%) were tribal nations, and 28 (2%) were US territories. IPC technical assistance was provided to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 16 tribal nations, and 5 US territories. The average total number of technical assistance responses per site during the 24-month period was 34 to state and local HDs (range, 2–111), 6 to tribal nations (when tribal nation was specified;range, 1–17), and 6 to US territories (range, 1–15). E-mail communications comprised 1,164 responses (62%);phone consultations made up the remaining 705 responses (38%). Of phone consultations, 350 (50%) were with CDC field deployers providing onsite support to health departments. The average number of technical-assistance responses provided each month across all jurisdictions was 78 (range, 0–334);months with high volumes included April–August 2020 and January 2021. Conclusions: These findings highlight the high-level collaboration between federal and state, tribal, local, and territorial health department partners in remote and onsite support of COVID-19 prevention and response efforts in healthcare settings. Variations in monthly volumes of health-department COVID-19 healthcare IPC technical assistance requests may reflect factors such as fluctuations in community infection rates and changes in CDC IPC guidance. The ability to provide effective technical assistance during pandemic response depends on the CDC maintaining sufficient healthcare IPC staffing and expertise.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Outbreak response activities conducted by public health programs in healthcare facilities nationwide, August 2019–July 2020

Background: Rapid response is critical to control healthcare-associated infection (HAI) and antibiotic resistance threats within healthcare facilities to prevent illness among patients, residents, and healthcare personnel. Through this analysis, we aimed to quantify public health response activities, by healthcare setting type, for (1) novel and targeted multidrug-resistant organisms or mechanisms (MDROs), (2) SARS-CoV-2, and (3) other possible outbreaks. Method: We reviewed response activity data submitted by US state, territorial, and local health department HAI/AR programs to the CDC as part of funding requirements. We performed descriptive analyses of response activities conducted during the funding reporting period (August 2019–July 2020). SARS-CoV-2 response activities were reported from January through July 2020. Data were analyzed by response category (novel or targeted MDRO, SARS-CoV-2, other HAI/AR responses), and healthcare setting type. Results: During August 2019–July 2020, 57 HAI/AR Programs (50 state, 1 territorial, 5 local health departments, and District of Columbia) reported 18,306 public health responses involving healthcare facilities. These data included 3,860 responses to 1 or more cases of novel or targeted MDROs, 13,992 responses to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks (beginning in January 2020), and 454 responses to other possible outbreaks. Novel and targeted MDRO responses most frequently occurred in acute-care hospitals (ACHs, 64.5%), skilled nursing facilities (SNFs, 24.5%), and long-term acute-care hospitals (LTACHs, 5.8%). SARS-CoV-2 responses most frequently occurred in SNFs (55%), and assisted living facilities (24%). Other HAI/AR responses most frequently occurred in ACH (50%), SNF (28.4%), and outpatient settings (19.6%). Of the "other” HAI/AR responses, 76% were responses to cases, clusters, or outbreaks, and 23.8% were responses to serious infection control breaches including device and instrument reprocessing, injection safety, and other deficient practices. Conclusions: During the study period, public health programs performed a high volume of HAI/AR response activities largely focused on SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Other important response activities occurred across a range of other healthcare settings, including responses to novel and targeted MDROs, HAI outbreaks, and serious infection control breaches. Whereas SARS-CoV-2 response activities largely centered in long-term care settings, MDRO and other HAI/AR responses occurred mostly in acute-care settings. These data demonstrate the importance of building and sustaining public health response capacity for a broad array of healthcare settings, pathogens, and patient populations to meet the range of current and emerging HAI/AR threats.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Evaluation of a Virtual Training to Enhance Public Health Capacity for COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control in Nursing Homes.

CONTEXT: Between April 2020 and May 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded more than $40 billion to health departments nationwide for COVID-19 prevention and response activities. One of the identified priorities for this investment was improving infection prevention and control (IPC) in nursing homes. PROGRAM: CDC developed a virtual course to train new and less experienced public health staff in core healthcare IPC principles and in the application of CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes. IMPLEMENTATION: From October 2020 to August 2021, the CDC led training sessions for 12 cohorts of public health staff using pretraining reading materials, case-based scenarios, didactic presentations, peer-learning opportunities, and subject matter expert-led discussions. Multiple electronic assessments were distributed to learners over time to measure changes in self-reported knowledge and confidence and to collect feedback on the course. Participating public health programs were also assessed to measure overall course impact. EVALUATION: Among 182 enrolled learners, 94% completed the training. Most learners were infection preventionists (42%) or epidemiologists (38%), had less than 1 year of experience in their health department role (75%), and had less than 1 year of subject matter experience (54%). After training, learners reported increased knowledge and confidence in applying the CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes (≥81%) with the greatest increase in performing COVID-19 IPC consultations and assessments (87%). The majority of participating programs agreed that the course provided an overall benefit (88%) and reduced training burden (72%). DISCUSSION: The CDC's virtual course was effective in increasing public health capacity for COVID-19 healthcare IPC in nursing homes and provides a possible model to increase IPC capacity for other infectious diseases and other healthcare settings. Future virtual healthcare IPC courses could be enhanced by tailoring materials to health department needs, reinforcing training through applied learning experiences, and supporting mechanisms to retain trained staff.

Zinc for the prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections in adults: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults. METHOD: Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality). CONCLUSIONS: In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182044.

Annual trends in diabetes screening and management in Australia: A secondary analysis of Medicare Benefits Schedule data

APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION Australian adults (4.1% of those aged 18 years and over) have type 2 diabetes (T2D).1 An additional one in six Australians older than 25 years are estimated to have impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG) that is collectively referred to as prediabetes.2-4 A staggering 67% of adults in Australia (12.5 million adults) are overweight or obese, which increases their risk of either developing T2D or experiencing more complications from T2D.125 By 2015, T2D was the 12th largest contributor to Australias disease burden, accounting for an estimated 2.3% ($2.7 billion) of total disease expenditure.1 Due to the anticipated rising prevalence of T2D, associated costs will continue to rise.2 The aetiology of T2D is multifactorial and includes increasing age, genetics and lifestyle factors.12 For example, the prevalence of T2D in adults who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander is almost twice that of the general Australian population, with 7.9% or 64,100 adults self-reporting this diagnosis in 2018-19.1 Early detection of prediabetes and those at risk of developing prediabetes are key elements in reducing the progression to T2D.126 For years, fasting blood glucose (FBG) followed by a glucose tolerance test (GTT) was the standard approach used to screen and diagnose dysglycaemia, prediabetes and T2D.67 In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as an alternative.8 Within five years, the WHOs recommendation had been officially adopted in Australia.9-12 The move was supported by the Australian Government which, in late 2014, introduced new pathology item numbers to be funded through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for HbA1c pathology tests to screen for diabetes. Regarding screening for T2D, little has changed since The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and Diabetes Australia joint guidelines adopted the alternative HbA1c screening pathway in their 2016 edition (Table 1).1011 Most recently, a joint position statement was published by the Australian Diabetes Educators Association, the Australian Diabetes Society, the Dietitians Association of Australia, Exercise and Sports Science Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.12 In contrast with the RACGP guidelines, which focus on screening and diagnosing T2D in asymptomatic people, the newer guidelines apply a lower threshold when using the Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool AUSDRISK13 to identify and screen for prediabetes that is defined by IFG, IGT and/or elevated HbA1c that are yet to meet the diagnostic criteria for T2D (Table 1). Both recommended FBG or HbA1c as a first-line investigation, with GTT being reserved for instances when the GTT results will influence the management of a borderline abnormal FBG result.1112 It should also be noted the diagnostic criteria for prediabetes remains contentious due to poor correlations between the three tests, poor reproducibility in adult and paediatric populations, and possibly different underlying pathophysiology.3 Consequently, the WHO, the American Diabetes Association, the RACGP, and the Australian joint position statement all use slightly different criteria for screening and diagnosing prediabetes.4'11'12 To further understand the extent to which changes to clinical practice guidelines and available pathology tests are being used in Australia to reduce progression along the T2D continuum, this study examined 10-year annual trends, from 2010-19, in the use of relevant MBS-funded T2D pathology testing by Australian doctors. Relevant MBS item numbers for pathology tests were identified by searching the Australian Government MBS Online14 with the terms 'diabetes', 'glucose', 'fasting glucose', 'fasting plasma glucose', 'glycated haemoglobin', HbA1c, 'Glucose tolerance test', 'GTT', 'Type 2 Diabetes', 'Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus' and 'T2D'.

Honeybee products for the treatment and recovery from viral respiratory infections including SARS-COV-2: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs), including SARS-CoV-2, in adults and children. METHODS: Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Four English databases plus preprint servers and trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The evidence was appraised and synthesized using RoB 2.0 and GRADE. RESULTS: 27 results were derived from 9 RCTs that included 674 adults and 781 children. In hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2, propolis plus usual-care compared to usual-care alone reduced the risk of shock, respiratory failure and kidney injury and duration of hospital admission. Honey was less effective than Guaifenesin for reducing cough severity at 60-minutes in adults with non-specific acute viral RTIs. Compared to coffee, honey plus coffee, and honey alone reduced the severity of post-infectious cough in adults. Honey reduced the duration of cough in children compared to placebo and salbutamol; and the global impact of nocturnal cough after one night compared to usual-care alone and pharmaceutical cough medicines. CONCLUSION: More studies are needed to robustly assess honeybee's role in SARS-CoV-2 and non-specific viral respiratory infections. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020193847.

Investigation of a Suspect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 and Influenza A Mixed Outbreak: Lessons Learned for Long-Term Care Facilities Nationwide.

A suspected outbreak of influenza A and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a long-term care facility in Los Angeles County was, months later, determined to not involve influenza. To prevent inadvertent transmission of infections, facilities should use highly specific influenza diagnostics and follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that specifically address infection control challenges.

Corrigendum to "Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine" [Integr Med Res 2020; 9: 100484].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100484.].

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit in London: A prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cohorts of severely ill patients with COVID-19 have been described in several countries around the globe, but to date there have been few published reports from the United Kingdom (UK). Understanding the characteristics of the affected population admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK is crucial to inform clinical decision making, research and planning for future waves of infection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of all patients with COVID-19 admitted to a large UK ICU from March to May 2020 with follow-up to June 2020. Data were collected from health records using a standardised template. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyse the factors associated with ICU survival. RESULTS: Of the 156 patients included, 112 (72%) were male, 89 (57%) were overweight or obese, 68 (44%) were from ethnic minorities, and 89 (57%) were aged over 60 years of age. 136 (87%) received mechanical ventilation, 77 (57% of those intubated) were placed in the prone position and 95 (70% of those intubated) received neuromuscular blockade. 154 (99%) patients required cardiovascular support and 44 (28%) required renal replacement therapy. Of the 130 patients with completed ICU episodes, 38 (29%) died and 92 (71%) were discharged alive from ICU. In multivariable models, age (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.07-1.21]), obesity (OR 3.06 [95% CI 1.16-8.74]), lowest P/F ratio on the first day of admission (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]) and PaCO2 (OR 1.52 [95% CI 1.01-2.39]) were independently associated with ICU death. CONCLUSIONS: Age, obesity and severity of respiratory failure were key determinants of survival in this cohort. Multiorgan failure was prevalent. These findings are important for guiding future research and should be taken into consideration during future healthcare planning in the UK.

Corrigendum to "Rapid review protocol: Zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and other coronavirus-related respiratory tract infections" [Integr Med Res 9 (2020): 100457].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100457.].

Lack of Serologic Evidence of Infection Among Health Care Personnel and Other Contacts of First 2 Confirmed Patients With COVID-19 in Illinois, 2020.

OBJECTIVES: Widespread global transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), continues. Many questions remain about asymptomatic or atypical infections and transmission dynamics. We used comprehensive contact tracing of the first 2 confirmed patients in Illinois with COVID-19 and serologic SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing to determine whether contacts had evidence of undetected COVID-19. METHODS: Contacts were eligible for serologic follow-up if previously tested for COVID-19 during an initial investigation or had greater-risk exposures. Contacts completed a standardized questionnaire during the initial investigation. We classified exposure risk as high, medium, or low based on interactions with 2 index patients and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Serologic testing used a SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay on serum specimens collected from participants approximately 6 weeks after initial exposure to either index patient. The 2 index patients provided serum specimens throughout their illness. We collected data on demographic, exposure, and epidemiologic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 347 contacts, 110 were eligible for serologic follow-up; 59 (17% of all contacts) enrolled. Of these, 53 (90%) were health care personnel and 6 (10%) were community contacts. Seventeen (29%) reported high-risk exposures, 15 (25%) medium-risk, and 27 (46%) low-risk. No participant had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The 2 index patients had antibodies detected at dilutions >1:6400 within 4 weeks after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: In serologic follow-up of the first 2 known patients in Illinois with COVID-19, we found no secondary transmission among tested contacts. Lack of seroconversion among these contacts adds to our understanding of conditions (ie, use of PPE) under which SARS-CoV-2 infections might not result in transmission and demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is a useful tool to verify epidemiologic findings.

Enhanced contact investigations for nine early travel-related cases of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. In response to the first cases identified in the United States, close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were investigated to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. Close contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified and monitored daily for development of symptoms (active monitoring). Selected close contacts (including those with exposures categorized as higher risk) were targeted for collection of additional exposure information and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Four hundred four close contacts were actively monitored in the jurisdictions that managed the travel-related cases. Three hundred thirty-eight of the 404 close contacts provided at least basic exposure information, of whom 159 close contacts had ≥1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all actively monitored close contacts, two additional symptomatic COVID-19 cases (i.e., secondary cases) were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. When considering only household members, all of whom had ≥1 respiratory sample tested for SARS-CoV-2, the secondary attack rate (i.e., the number of secondary cases as a proportion of total close contacts) was 13% (95% CI: 4-38%). The results from these contact tracing investigations suggest that household members, especially significant others, of COVID-19 cases are at highest risk of becoming infected. The importance of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers is also underlined. Isolation of persons with COVID-19, in combination with quarantine of exposed close contacts and practice of everyday preventive behaviors, is important to mitigate spread of COVID-19.

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms. METHOD: An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and four clinical trial registries (one Chinese) were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating single or adjunct zinc against placebo or active controls, for prevention and/or treatment of SARS-CoV-2, other coronaviruses or related infections. RR constraints included not searching bibliographies or contacting authors, single reviewers with calibration and second reviewer checking, meta-analyses and quality appraisal of critical and study primary outcomes only and reporting results as they became available. RESULTS: 118 publications of 1,627 records met the inclusion criteria (35 Chinese and 83 English publications), 32 for prevention, 78 for treatment and 8 for both. Four RCTs specific to SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing; two are investigating zinc for prevention and two for treatment. As of 7 July 2020, no results were available. A wide range of zinc forms, including nasal spray/gel, lozenges, liquid, tablets and intramuscular were investigated. CONCLUSION: Currently, indirect evidence suggests zinc may potentially reduce the risk, duration and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for populations at risk of zinc deficiency including people with chronic disease co-morbidities and older adults. Direct evidence to determine if zinc is effective for either prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is pending. In the interim, assessing zinc status of people with chronic diseases and older adults, as part of a SARS-CoV-2 clinical work-up, is reasonable as both groups have a higher risk of zinc deficiency/insufficiency and poorer outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.

Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of rapid reviews geared towards providing time sensitive answers for clinical and policy decision-makers. Rapid reviews (RRs) strike a balance between rigour and rapidity to minimise bias and optimise transparency within specified constraints. Methods: This review article appraised the methods and reporting standards of a convenience sample of RR protocols and RRs of COVID-19 clinical management questions, published in the first six-months of 2020. Inclusion criteria were all RR protocols evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) registered on PROSPERO, and all RRs indexed on PubMed or published on the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service. A purpose-specific 9-item reporting checklist reflecting recommended minimum requirements for RRs was applied. Findings were synthesised and narrated in the context of methodological considerations for conducting and reporting RRs of TCIM. Results: Included studies were five RR protocols of TCIM and 16 RRs, of which five considered TCIM. Wide variations in RR methods were proposed or applied, as were the reporting standards. All five RRs that evaluated TCIM had the lowest reporting standards that limited reproducibility and transparency. Despite accepted recommendations, most RRs did not publish a protocol. Conclusions: We propose that specific research disciplines, such as TCIM, have a uniqueness that may lead to unacceptable outputs if minimum methodological standards are not applied. The recommended minimum requirements will optimise the credibility of rapid reviews of TCIM and limit the risk of prematurely disregarding a potentially effective intervention.

Rapid review protocol: Zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and other coronavirus-related respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions. SARS-CoV-2 mortality/morbidity risk increases with age and for those chronic disease co-morbidities, both of which are associated with lower zinc status, as is the risk of infection. METHODS: Rapid review methods will be applied to a systematic review of zinc for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and viral respiratory tract infections in humans. Included are published studies reporting randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare zinc intervention to placebo and/or other comparator interventions. English and Chinese language databases will be searched for primary studies of viral respiratory tract infections and clinical trial registries for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Due to concerns about indirectness, studies evaluating non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections will be rated down by one level, and non-specific or confirmed non-coronavirus viral infections will be rated down by two levels. Review constraints include (1) using Google translate when screening articles published in languages other than English or Chinese and limited translation (2) following calibration, only one reviewer will screen articles, extract data, appraise quality and conduct the analysis, (3) prioritising data extraction and meta-analyses of SARS-CoV-2 studies and critical outcomes of other viral infections, followed by high risk groups and (4) reporting important preliminary findings prior to peer review if necessary. DISCUSSION: The application of these rapid review methods and broadening the inclusion criteria to include other coronavirus-related viral respiratory tract infections aims to enable a timely evidence appraisal of priority research questions and dissemination of results. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182044.

First known person-to-person transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first detected in China in December, 2019. In January, 2020, state, local, and federal public health agencies investigated the first case of COVID-19 in Illinois, USA. METHODS: Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were defined as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Contacts were people with exposure to a patient with COVID-19 on or after the patient's symptom onset date. Contacts underwent active symptom monitoring for 14 days following their last exposure. Contacts who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath became persons under investigation and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. A convenience sample of 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel contacts were also tested. FINDINGS: Patient 1-a woman in her 60s-returned from China in mid-January, 2020. One week later, she was hospitalised with pneumonia and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Her husband (Patient 2) did not travel but had frequent close contact with his wife. He was admitted 8 days later and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 372 contacts of both cases were identified; 347 underwent active symptom monitoring, including 152 community contacts and 195 health-care personnel. Of monitored contacts, 43 became persons under investigation, in addition to Patient 2. These 43 persons under investigation and all 32 asymptomatic health-care personnel tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. INTERPRETATION: Person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between two people with prolonged, unprotected exposure while Patient 1 was symptomatic. Despite active symptom monitoring and testing of symptomatic and some asymptomatic contacts, no further transmission was detected. FUNDING: None.