Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Euro Surveill ; 26(48)2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613503

ABSTRACT

BackgroundMany countries implemented national lockdowns to contain the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and avoid overburdening healthcare capacity.AimWe aimed to quantify how the French lockdown impacted population mixing, contact patterns and behaviours.MethodsWe conducted an online survey using convenience sampling and collected information from participants aged 18 years and older between 10 April and 28 April 2020.ResultAmong the 42,036 survey participants, 72% normally worked outside their home, and of these, 68% changed to telework during lockdown and 17% reported being unemployed during lockdown. A decrease in public transport use was reported from 37% to 2%. Participants reported increased frequency of hand washing and changes in greeting behaviour. Wearing masks in public was generally limited. A total of 138,934 contacts were reported, with an average of 3.3 contacts per individual per day; 1.7 in the participants aged 65 years and older compared with 3.6 for younger age groups. This represented a 70% reduction compared with previous surveys, consistent with SARS-CoV2 transmission reduction measured during the lockdown. For those who maintained a professional activity outside home, the frequency of contacts at work dropped by 79%.ConclusionThe lockdown affected the population's behaviour, work, risk perception and contact patterns. The frequency and heterogeneity of contacts, both of which are critical factors in determining how viruses spread, were affected. Such surveys are essential to evaluate the impact of lockdowns more accurately and anticipate epidemic dynamics in these conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Age Factors , Communicable Disease Control , France/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(3): e212713, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1146633

ABSTRACT

Importance: Acute bacterial sinusitis is common, but currently recommended antibiotic treatment provides minimal benefit. Objective: To confirm the previous finding that high-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate (with double the amount of amoxicillin) may be superior to standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate in adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, comparative-effectiveness randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 26, 2018, through May 10, 2020, at the academic primary care internal medicine and pediatrics practice of Albany Medical Center, located in Cohoes, New York. Participants included adults aged 18 years or older who were prescribed amoxicillin plus clavulanate for acute bacterial sinusitis diagnosed in accordance with the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. Interventions: Amoxicillin 875 mg with clavulanate 125 mg plus either placebo (standard dose) or amoxicillin 875 mg (high dose) twice a day for 7 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms" at the end of 3 days of treatment using a Global Rating of Improvement scale, with outcomes ranging from 1 (a lot worse) to 6 (no symptoms). The primary adverse effect outcome was severe diarrhea at 3 or 10 days after the start of treatment. Results: At an unplanned interim analysis prompted by COVID-19 restrictions, 157 of a projected 240 participants had been enrolled (mean age, 48.5 [range, 18.7-84.0] years; 117 women [74.5%]), with 79 randomized to the standard dose and 78 to the high dose; 9 and 12, respectively, withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the assessment of the primary outcome. At day 3, 31 of 70 participants (44.3%) in the standard-dose group reported a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms," as did 24 of 66 (36.4%) in the high-dose group, for a difference of -7.9% (95% CI, -24.4% to 8.5%; P = .35). The study was, therefore, stopped for futility. Diarrhea was common in both groups by day 3, with any diarrhea reported in 29 of 71 participants (40.8%) receiving the standard dose and 28 of 65 (43.1%) receiving the high dose and severe diarrhea reported in 5 of 71 (7.0%) and 5 of 65 (7.7%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that adults treated for clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis did not appear to benefit from taking high-dose compared with standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03431337.


Subject(s)
Amoxicillin , Clavulanic Acid , Sinusitis , Acute Disease , Amoxicillin/administration & dosage , Amoxicillin/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Clavulanic Acid/administration & dosage , Clavulanic Acid/adverse effects , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sinusitis/diagnosis , Sinusitis/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome , beta-Lactamase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , beta-Lactamase Inhibitors/adverse effects
3.
BMC Med ; 18(1): 386, 2020 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962808

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources. METHODS: We used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in a real LTCF setting. We simulated distribution of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests using clinical and demographic indications and evaluated the efficacy and resource-efficiency of a range of surveillance strategies, including group testing (sample pooling) and testing cascades, which couple (i) testing for multiple indications (symptoms, admission) with (ii) random daily testing. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, randomly introducing a silent SARS-CoV-2 infection into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (95% uncertainty interval 6-224) infections after 3 weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by lags to symptom onset and silent asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. Across scenarios, testing upon admission detected just 34-66% of patients infected upon LTCF entry, and also missed potential introductions from staff. Random daily testing was more effective when targeting patients than staff, but was overall an inefficient use of limited resources. At high testing capacity (> 10 tests/100 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 19-36% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 26-46% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (< 2 tests/100 beds/day), group testing strategies detected outbreaks earliest. Pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most likely to detect outbreaks prior to first symptom onset (16-27%), while pooling patients and staff expressing any COVID-like symptoms was the most efficient means to improve surveillance given resource limitations, compared to the reference requiring only 6-9 additional tests and 11-28 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 1-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 11-22 infections. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surveillance is challenged by delayed or absent clinical symptoms and imperfect diagnostic sensitivity of standard RT-PCR tests. In our analysis, group testing was the most effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Testing cascades were even more effective given ample testing resources. Increasing testing capacity and updating surveillance protocols accordingly could facilitate earlier detection of emerging outbreaks, informing a need for urgent intervention in settings with ongoing nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL