School Closures During Social Lockdown and Mental Health, Health Behaviors, and Well-being Among Children and Adolescents During the First COVID-19 Wave: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: School closures as part of broader social lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with the health and well-being of children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To review published reports on the association of school closures during broader social lockdown with mental health, health behaviors, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 years, excluding associations with transmission of infection. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Eleven databases were searched from inception to September 2020, and machine learning was applied for screening articles. A total of 16 817 records were screened, 151 were reviewed in full text, and 36 studies were included. Quality assessment was tailored to study type. A narrative synthesis of results was undertaken because data did not allow meta-analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 36 studies from 11 countries were identified, involving a total of 79 781 children and adolescents and 18 028 parents, which occurred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to July 2020). All evaluated school closure as part of broader social lockdown during the first COVID-19 wave, and the duration of school closure ranged from 1 week to 3 months. Of those, 9 (25%) were longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 (14%) were cohort, 21 (58%) were cross-sectional, and 1 (3%) was a modeling study. Thirteen studies (36%) were high quality, 17 (47%) were medium quality, and 6 (17%) were low quality. Twenty-three studies (64%) were published, 8 (22%) were online reports, and 5 (14%) were preprints. Twenty-five studies (69%) concerning mental health identified associations across emotional, behavioral, and restlessness/inattention problems; 18% to 60% of children and adolescents scored above risk thresholds for distress, particularly anxiety and depressive symptoms, and 2 studies reported no significant association with suicide. Three studies reported that child protection referrals were lower than expected number of referrals originating in schools. Three studies suggested higher screen time usage, 2 studies reported greater social media use, and 6 studies reported lower physical activity. Studies on sleep (10 studies) and diet (5 studies) provided inconclusive evidence on harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this narrative synthesis of reports from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies of short-term school closures as part of social lockdown measures reported adverse mental health symptoms and health behaviors among children and adolescents. Associations between school closure and health outcomes and behaviors could not be separated from broader lockdown measures.

The Standard of Care Definitions on COVID-19 Pharmacological Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

[Impact of social distancing for covid-19 on young people: type and quality of the studies found through a systematic review of the literature.] / Impatto del distanziamento sociale per covid-19 sui giovani: tipologia e qualità degli studi reperiti attraversouna revisione sistematica della letteratura.

BACKGROUND: During the first semester 2020 almost all country implemented rigid measures of social distances, including schools closure, to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Up to now, however, the efficacy of school closure to reduce the spread of the disease in the community still remain unclear and no much is known about the potential negative effects of such measures on physical health and psychological wellbeing of children and adolescents, mainly if protracted for long periods. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the most relevant data of a systematic review on the impact of the 2020 school closure and social distances measures implemented in response to covid-19 pandemic on youths physical health and psychological wellbeing. In the present paper we describe the review's methodology and the characteristics and methodological quality of the retrieved studies. METHODS: We searched on 11 international databases up to 1st September 2020 to retrieve cohort studies, cross sectional surveys, uncontrolled pre-post studies and modelling studies. Methodological quality of included studies has been assessed with validated checklists. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies have been included; 42 assessed the effect of social distances measure of physical health and 27 on psychological wellbeing. All the studies have been conducted during the first wave of pandemic and assessed the short-term effect of social distances measures implemented for relatively short periods. The 32.4% of the studies has been conducted in the UK, 20.3% in Italy, 12.5% in China, 10.9% in developing countries and 9.4% in the US. 37.5% of the studies were cohort studies, 40.6% cross sectional surveys, 19.7% uncontrolled studies and 1 was a modeling study. 59.6% of the studies has been rated as high quality. The most important weakness of the cross-sectional surveys and uncontrolled studies was the scarce representativeness of the sample while 96% of the cohort studies were judged as high quality. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of acceptable quality studies have been published during the first months of pandemic to assess the impact of school closure and social distances measures on physical health and psychological wellbeing of youths. This highlights the relevance of the topic and the need to assess carefully the balance between harms and benefits of such measures in terms of actual reduction of transmission and youths' psychological and physical harms. Further studies are needed on the long-term effect of social distances measures extended over long periods.

[Impact of social distancing for covid-19 on the psychological well-being of youths: a systematic review of the literature.] / Impatto del distanziamento sociale per covid-19 sul benessere psicologico dei giovani: una revisione sistematica della letteratura.

BACKGROUND: During the first semester 2020 almost all country implemented rigid measures of social distances, including schools closure, to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Up to now, however, the efficacy of school closure to reduce the spread of the disease in the community still remains unclear and no much is known about the potential negative effects of such measures on physical health and psychological wellbeing of youths, mainly if protracted for long periods. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the data of a systematic review on the impact of the 2020 school closure and social distances measures implemented in response to covid-19 pandemic on youths' physical health and psychological wellbeing. In the present paper we describe the impact on psychological wellbeing. METHODS: We searched 11 international databases up to 1st September 2020 to retrieve cohort studies, cross sectional surveys, uncontrolled pre-post studies and modelling studies. Methodological quality of included studies has been assessed with validated checklists. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies have been included; 27 assessed the impact on psychological wellbeing. All the studies have been conducted during the first wave of pandemic and assessed the short-term effect of social distances measures implemented for relatively short periods. The majority of the studies were conducted in the UK (37,6%) and China (27%). The 42.3% has been judged of high methodological quality. Two studies reported an increase of suicides, while two studies reported a reduction of the access to Psychiatric Emergency Department, Maltreatment allegations decreased substantially, likely due to a reduction in reports rather than actual incidence. Prevalence of anxiety among adolescents ranged between 19% and 64%, depression between 22.3% and 43.7%. Among children 5-12 years old, prevalence of anxiety varied between 19% and 78%, while depression between 6.3% and 22.6%. Among pre-school children, some studies found worsening of behavioural and emotional problems while others did not. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies reported relevant worsening of the psychological wellbeing, mainly among adolescents. If school closure and rigid social distances measures will extend for a long time, an even more pronounced negative effect can be expected. Further studies are needed on the long-term effect of prolonged social distances measures, as well as a careful harm-benefit analysis of the impact of such measures.

[Impact of social distancing for covid-19 on youths' physical health: a systematic review of the literature.] / Impatto del distanziamento sociale per covid-19 sulla salute fisica dei giovani: una revisione sistematica della letteratura.

BACKGROUND: Schools' closure during covid-19 pandemic implemented almost all over the world, together with social distances measures and lockdown to reduce transmission, could have had negative impact on youths' health. AIM: Summarize the most relevant data from a literature systematic review on the impact on youths' physical health of the 2020 school closure and social distances measures implemented in response to covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors of the original review searched on 11 international databases up to 1st September 2020 to retrieve cohort studies, cross sectional surveys, uncontrolled pre-post studies and modelling studies. Methodological quality has been assessed with validated checklists. RESULTS: Forty-two studies reporting the impact on physical health have been finally included. They have been conducted in 14 countries, most of which in Italy (30.9%) and UK (30.9%). The majority were cohort studies (40.5%) and the overall methodological quality, irrespective of study designs, was high for the 71.4% of the studies. Twenty-seven studies assessed the impact on health services utilization, whose results showed a relevant reduction of Emergency Departments accesses (64%-89.3%) and hospital admissions (31%-85%); however, an increase of acute cases was observed together with delayed admission. An important reduction of vaccine services utilization was also noted during the first period of lockdown. Domestic accidents and head trauma for suspected domestic violence increased. Health related behaviours worsened, with a relevant increase of screen time (mean of 2.9 hours to 5.1 hours), an important reduction of physical activity (up to 64%). Finally, sleep problems and increase of food consumption, particularly the unhealthy food were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Relevant negative effects of school closure and social distances measures have observed. All the studies have been conducted during the first wave of pandemic and assessed the short-term effect of closures implemented for relatively short periods. If school closure and rigid social distances measures imposition will extend for a long time, an even more pronounced negative effect can be expected. In the context of health policies, in addition to the potential benefits of school closures and social distancing measures on the containment of infection, the potential damage on the physical health of young people should be taken into account by implementing policies to safeguard their health.

[The praise of uncertainty: a systematic living review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for patients with covid-19.] / L'elogio dell'incertezza: una revisione sistematica living per valutare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei trattamenti farmacologici per pazienti affetti da covid-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.