Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316697

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by SARS-CoV-2 and presents itself mainly as a respiratory tract infection. However, reports of associated central nervous system (CNS) manifestations are increasing. Methods: : We conducted this rapid review to determine the frequency of CNS manifestations of COVID-19 (CNS symptoms, acute cerebrovascular disease, and infectious/inflammatory CNS diseases) and to summarize the current evidence for direct invasion of the CNS by SARS-CoV-2. An information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE, the CDC: COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable and WHO COVID-19 Databases, CENTRAL, and Epistemonikos.org on May 13, 2020. Two reviewers screened abstracts and potentially relevant full-text publications independently. The data extraction, assessment of risk of bias,and certainty of evidence using GRADE was done by one reviewer and double-checked by another. If possible and reasonable, a meta-analysis was carried out. Results: We identified 13 relevant studies (four cohort studies, nine case studies) with a total of 866 COVID-19 patients.In a Chinese cohort, dizziness (16.8%;36 of 214) and headache (13.1%;28 of 214) were the most common CNS symptoms reported. A meta-analysis of four cohort studies including 851 COVID-19 patients showed an incidence of 3.3% (95% CI: 2.2–4.9) for ischemic stroke (follow-up: one to five weeks). In 13 of 15 encephalitis case studies, PCR testing of the cerebrospinal fluid did not detect any virus components. Conclusion: CNS manifestations occur frequently in patients with COVID-19. It is important to integrate neurologists into the multiprofessional COVID-19 treatment team to detect neurological complications early and to treat them correctly.

2.
BMJ Open ; 11(4): e041619, 2021 04 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1175167

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively map the existing evidence assessing the impact of travel-related control measures for containment of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Rapid evidence map. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and COVID-19 specific databases offered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies in human populations susceptible to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1/severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus/Middle East respiratory syndrome or influenza. Interventions of interest were travel-related control measures affecting travel across national or subnational borders. Outcomes of interest included infectious disease, screening, other health, economic and social outcomes. We considered all empirical studies that quantitatively evaluate impact available in Armenian, English, French, German, Italian and Russian based on the team's language capacities. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data from included studies in a standardised manner and mapped them to a priori and (one) post hoc defined categories. RESULTS: We included 122 studies assessing travel-related control measures. These studies were undertaken across the globe, most in the Western Pacific region (n=71). A large proportion of studies focused on COVID-19 (n=59), but a number of studies also examined SARS, MERS and influenza. We identified studies on border closures (n=3), entry/exit screening (n=31), travel-related quarantine (n=6), travel bans (n=8) and travel restrictions (n=25). Many addressed a bundle of travel-related control measures (n=49). Most studies assessed infectious disease (n=98) and/or screening-related (n=25) outcomes; we found only limited evidence on economic and social outcomes. Studies applied numerous methods, both inferential and descriptive in nature, ranging from simple observational methods to complex modelling techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base on travel-related control measures. While this map is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of different measures, it outlines aspects regarding interventions and outcomes, as well as study methodology and reporting that could inform future research and evidence synthesis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics , Travel , Geography, Medical , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013574, 2020 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-897667

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics , Public Health , Quarantine , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Incidence , Observational Studies as Topic , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Schools , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/mortality , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control , Travel , World Health Organization
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013718, 2020 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-777342

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Air Travel/statistics & numerical data , Airports , Bias , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Cohort Studies , Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Models, Theoretical , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Sensitivity and Specificity , Travel-Related Illness
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD013574, 2020 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-46454

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Human Activities , Mortality , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Quarantine , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Epidemiological Monitoring , Evidence-Based Medicine , Global Health , Humans , Incidence , Mortality/trends , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL