Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD015029, 2022 01 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1802012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components. Measures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools. Across all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.  We found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures, including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school). We found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures, where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.   As the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Schools
2.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 116, 2022 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1799118

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a high interest in mathematical models describing and predicting the diverse aspects and implications of the virus outbreak. Model results represent an important part of the information base for the decision process on different administrative levels. The Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) initiated a project whose main goal is to predict COVID-19-specific occupation of beds in intensive care units: Steuerungs-Prognose von Intensivmedizinischen COVID-19 Kapazitäten (SPoCK). The incidence of COVID-19 cases is a crucial predictor for this occupation. METHODS: We developed a model based on ordinary differential equations for the COVID-19 spread with a time-dependent infection rate described by a spline. Furthermore, the model explicitly accounts for weekday-specific reporting and adjusts for reporting delay. The model is calibrated in a purely data-driven manner by a maximum likelihood approach. Uncertainties are evaluated using the profile likelihood method. The uncertainty about the appropriate modeling assumptions can be accounted for by including and merging results of different modelling approaches. The analysis uses data from Germany describing the COVID-19 spread from early 2020 until March 31st, 2021. RESULTS: The model is calibrated based on incident cases on a daily basis and provides daily predictions of incident COVID-19 cases for the upcoming three weeks including uncertainty estimates for Germany and its subregions. Derived quantities such as cumulative counts and 7-day incidences with corresponding uncertainties can be computed. The estimation of the time-dependent infection rate leads to an estimated reproduction factor that is oscillating around one. Data-driven estimation of the dark figure purely from incident cases is not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a procedure to forecast near future COVID-19 incidences for diverse subregions in Germany which are made available to various decision makers via an interactive web application. Results of the incidence modeling are also used as a predictor for forecasting the need of intensive care units.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Decision Making , Forecasting , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Likelihood Functions , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 2022 Mar 10.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733958

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Time-series forecasting models play a central role in guiding intensive care coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) bed capacity in a pandemic. A key predictor of future intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 bed occupancy is the number of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the general population, which in turn is highly associated with week-to-week variability, reporting delays, regional differences, number of unknown cases, time-dependent infection rates, vaccinations, SARS-CoV­2 virus variants, and nonpharmaceutical containment measures. Furthermore, current and also future COVID ICU occupancy is significantly influenced by ICU discharge and mortality rates. METHODS: Both the number of new SARS-CoV­2 infections in the general population and intensive care COVID-19 bed occupancy rates are recorded in Germany. These data are statistically analyzed on a daily basis using epidemic SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infection, recovered) models using ordinary differential equations and multiple regression models. RESULTS: Forecast results of the immediate trend (20-day forecast) of ICU occupancy by COVID-19 patients are made available to decision makers at various levels throughout the country. CONCLUSION: The forecasts are compared with the development of available ICU bed capacities in order to identify capacity limitations at an early stage and to enable short-term solutions to be made, such as supraregional transfers.

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-311832

ABSTRACT

Differentiable programming has recently received much interest as a paradigm that facilitates taking gradients of computer programs. While the corresponding flexible gradient-based optimization approaches so far have been used predominantly for deep learning or enriching the latter with modeling components, we want to demonstrate that they can also be useful for statistical modeling per se, e.g., for quick prototyping when classical maximum likelihood approaches are challenging or not feasible. In an application from a COVID-19 setting, we utilize differentiable programming to quickly build and optimize a flexible prediction model adapted to the data quality challenges at hand. Specifically, we develop a regression model, inspired by delay differential equations, that can bridge temporal gaps of observations in the central German registry of COVID-19 intensive care cases for predicting future demand. With this exemplary modeling challenge, we illustrate how differentiable programming can enable simple gradient-based optimization of the model by automatic differentiation. This allowed us to quickly prototype a model under time pressure that outperforms simpler benchmark models. We thus exemplify the potential of differentiable programming also outside deep learning applications, to provide more options for flexible applied statistical modeling.

5.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-294108

ABSTRACT

A dysregulated immune response with high levels of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies characterizes patients with severe or critical COVID-19. Although a robust IgG response is traditionally considered to be protective, excessive triggering of activating Fc-gamma-receptors (FcγRs) could be detrimental and cause immunopathology. Here, we document that patients who develop soluble circulating IgG immune complexes (sICs) during infection are subject to enhanced immunopathology driven by FcγR activation. Utilizing cell-based reporter systems we provide evidence that sICs are predominantly formed prior to a specific humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. sIC formation, together with increased afucosylation of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG eventually leads to an enhanced CD16 (FcγRIII) activation of immune cells reaching activation levels comparable active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease. Our data suggest a vicious cycle of escalating immunopathology driven by an early formation of sICs in predisposed patients. These findings reconcile the seemingly paradoxical findings of high antiviral IgG responses and systemic immune dysregulation in severe COVID-19. Clinical implications The identification of sICs as drivers of an escalating immunopathology in predisposed patients opens new avenues regarding intervention strategies to alleviate critical COVID-19 progression. Graphical abstract A vicious cycle of immunopathology in COVID-19 patients is driven by soluble multimeric immune complexes (sICs) . SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers sIC formation in prone individuals. Activation of FcγRIII/CD16 expressing immune cells by sICs precedes a humoral response to SARS-CoV2 infection. sICs and infection add to IgG afucosylation, further enhancing FcγRIII/CD16 activation by opsonized targets. High inflammation induces further sIC mediated immune cell activation ultimately leading to an escalating immunopathology.

6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD015085, 2021 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1408722

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors. SEARCH METHODS: On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Long-Term Care , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL