Bupropion for postpartum smoking relapse: A remote protocol for a two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

Cigarette smoking among postpartum women remains a significant public health problem despite known health risks to women and their newborns. It is estimated that over 50% of women quit smoking during pregnancy but 90% relapse by one year. Safe and effective postpartum relapse prevention strategies are urgently needed. In an attempt to address this deficit, we will investigate the efficacy of bupropion vs. placebo as a smoking relapse prevention aid in postpartum women. The objective of this paper is to detail an approach to investigate bupropion's efficacy for preventing postpartum smoking relapse among women who quit smoking during pregnancy. Specifically, we designed a two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial testing the efficacy of bupropion vs. placebo as a relapse prevention tool. Mothers of healthy infants who quit smoking while pregnant will be stratified based on current or past history of major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder and randomized to receive either active (bupropion XL 300 mg/day) or placebo medication for 12 weeks. To respond to safety concerns associated with participant and staff exposure to COVID-19, we revised our original protocol and present procedures which allow our trial to be conducted entirely remotely. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at weeks 12, 24, 36 and 52 post-randomization. The primary outcome is 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks. Results of this work have the potential to positively impact women and their children by promoting lifelong cessation, eliminating secondhand smoke exposure, and modelling of abstinence to children.

Evaluation of droplet digital PCR for quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in discharged COVID-19 patients.

The worldwide severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has led to the rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The quantitative real time PCR (qPCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, more and more infected patients are relapsing after discharge, which suggests qPCR may fail to detect the virus in some cases. In this study, we selected 74 clinical samples from 43 recovering inpatients for qPCR and Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) synchronous blind detection, and established a cutoff value for ddPCR diagnosis of COVID-19. The results showed that at a cutoff value of 0.04 copies/µL, the ddPCR sensitivity and specificity are 97.6% and 100%, respectively. In addition, we also analyzed 18 retained samples from 9 discharged patients who relapsed. Although qPCR showed all 18 samples to be negative, ddPCR showed 12 to be positive, and there was only one patient with two negative samples; the other eight patients had at least one positive sample. These results indicate that ddPCR could significantly improve the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnosis, especially for discharged patients with a low viral load, and help to reduce misdiagnosis during recovery.

Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global priority. Contact tracing identifies people who were recently in contact with an infected individual, in order to isolate them and reduce further transmission. Digital technology could be implemented to augment and accelerate manual contact tracing. Digital tools for contact tracing may be grouped into three areas: 1) outbreak response; 2) proximity tracing; and 3) symptom tracking. We conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of digital solutions to contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits, harms, and acceptability of personal digital contact tracing solutions for identifying contacts of an identified positive case of an infectious disease. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched the literature from 1 January 2000 to 5 May 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. Additionally, we screened the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and modelling studies, in general populations. We preferentially included studies of contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks (including COVID-19, Ebola, tuberculosis, severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome) as direct evidence, but considered comparative studies of contact tracing outside an outbreak as indirect evidence. The digital solutions varied but typically included software (or firmware) for users to install on their devices or to be uploaded to devices provided by governments or third parties. Control measures included traditional or manual contact tracing, self-reported diaries and surveys, interviews, other standard methods for determining close contacts, and other technologies compared to digital solutions (e.g. electronic medical records). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened records and all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data for 50% of the included studies, another extracted data for the remaining 50%; the second review author checked all the extracted data. One review author assessed quality of included studies and a second checked the assessments. Our outcomes were identification of secondary cases and close contacts, time to complete contact tracing, acceptability and accessibility issues, privacy and safety concerns, and any other ethical issue identified. Though modelling studies will predict estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest, cohort studies provide empirically measured estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest. We used GRADE-CERQual to describe certainty of evidence from qualitative data and GRADE for modelling and cohort studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six cohort studies reporting quantitative data and six modelling studies reporting simulations of digital solutions for contact tracing. Two cohort studies also provided qualitative data. Three cohort studies looked at contact tracing during an outbreak, whilst three emulated an outbreak in non-outbreak settings (schools). Of the six modelling studies, four evaluated digital solutions for contact tracing in simulated COVID-19 scenarios, while two simulated close contacts in non-specific outbreak settings. Modelling studies Two modelling studies provided low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases using digital contact tracing (measured as average number of secondary cases per index case - effective reproductive number (R eff)). One study estimated an 18% reduction in R eff with digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone, and a 35% reduction with manual contact-tracing. Another found a reduction in R eff for digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (26% reduction) and a reduction in R eff for manual contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (53% reduction). However, the certainty of evidence was reduced by unclear specifications of their models, and assumptions about the effectiveness of manual contact tracing (assumed 95% to 100% of contacts traced), and the proportion of the population who would have the app (53%). Cohort studies Two cohort studies provided very low-certainty evidence of a benefit of digital over manual contact tracing. During an Ebola outbreak, contact tracers using an app found twice as many close contacts per case on average than those using paper forms. Similarly, after a pertussis outbreak in a US hospital, researchers found that radio-frequency identification identified 45 close contacts but searches of electronic medical records found 13. The certainty of evidence was reduced by concerns about imprecision, and serious risk of bias due to the inability of contact tracing study designs to identify the true number of close contacts. One cohort study provided very low-certainty evidence that an app could reduce the time to complete a set of close contacts. The certainty of evidence for this outcome was affected by imprecision and serious risk of bias. Contact tracing teams reported that digital data entry and management systems were faster to use than paper systems and possibly less prone to data loss. Two studies from lower- or middle-income countries, reported that contact tracing teams found digital systems simpler to use and generally preferred them over paper systems; they saved personnel time, reportedly improved accuracy with large data sets, and were easier to transport compared with paper forms. However, personnel faced increased costs and internet access problems with digital compared to paper systems. Devices in the cohort studies appeared to have privacy from contacts regarding the exposed or diagnosed users. However, there were risks of privacy breaches from snoopers if linkage attacks occurred, particularly for wearable devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of digital solutions is largely unproven as there are very few published data in real-world outbreak settings. Modelling studies provide low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases if digital contact tracing is used together with other public health measures such as self-isolation. Cohort studies provide very low-certainty evidence that digital contact tracing may produce more reliable counts of contacts and reduce time to complete contact tracing. Digital solutions may have equity implications for at-risk populations with poor internet access and poor access to digital technology. Stronger primary research on the effectiveness of contact tracing technologies is needed, including research into use of digital solutions in conjunction with manual systems, as digital solutions are unlikely to be used alone in real-world settings. Future studies should consider access to and acceptability of digital solutions, and the resultant impact on equity. Studies should also make acceptability and uptake a primary research question, as privacy concerns can prevent uptake and effectiveness of these technologies.

Periodontal disease and targeted prevention using aMMP-8 point-of-care oral fluid analytics in the COVID-19 era.

Periodontal disease is a chronic multifactorial infectious and inflammatory disease associated with several chronic systemic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease and so on. These same systemic diseases have been associated with severe COVID-19 infections. Several recent studies have suggested hypotheses for the potential association between periodontal disease and severe COVID-19. Periodontal disease is also one of the most prevalent diseases globally. All this supports the importance of good oral health, also in the COVID-19 era. Thus, new strategies and approaches to identify patients at risk of periodontal disease could be beneficial to enhance secondary prevention, especially if targeted to COVID-19 risk groups. Diagnostic biomarkers for periodontal disease have been researched extensively. Potential biomarkers in oral fluid with currently available rapid non-invasive point-of-care technology, such as aMMP-8, could help to extend screening and identification of patients at risk for periodontal disease also to situations and places where professional dental expertise and equipment are limited or unavailable. i.e., nursing and care homes, and rural and distant places. The oral fluid point-of-care technologies could also be useful in the hands of medical professionals (diabetes, CVD, etc.) to identify patients at risk for undiagnosed periodontal disease and to refer them to a dentist for examination and evaluation. Finally, if there is a causality between periodontal disease and severe COVID-19 infections, these point-of-care oral fluid biomarker technologies could possibly also help in the assessment of the risk of deterioration and complications.

Possible deferral of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients with abnormal screening tests results in cervical cancer secondary prevention in current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic Interim guidelines of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the Polish Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathophysiology.

The Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and Polish Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathophysiology Interim Guidelines goal at aiding gynecologists in providing a cervical cancer prevention care during the evolving SARS-CoV-2 pan-demic. Presented guidelines were developed on a review of limited data and updated when new relevant publications were revealed. Timing for deferrals of diagnostic-therapeutic procedures were mostly covered in the guidelines. Also, a support for the existing Polish recommendations on abnormal screening results in a subject of minor and major screening abnor-malities terminology were given. The guidelines are obligatory for the specified COVID-19 pandemic period only and they might be changed depending on the new available evidence.

Are we fully exploiting type I Interferons in today's fight against COVID-19 pandemic?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first emerged in late 2019 in China. At the time of writing, its causative agent SARS-CoV-2 has spread worldwide infecting over 9 million individuals and causing more than 460,000 deaths. In the absence of vaccines, we are facing the dramatic challenge of controlling COVID-19 pandemic. Among currently available drugs, type I Interferons (IFN-I) - mainly IFN-α and ß -represent ideal candidates given their direct and immune-mediated antiviral effects and the long record of clinical use. However, the best modalities of using these cytokines in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients is a matter of debate. Here, we discuss how we can exploit the current knowledge on IFN-I system to tailor the most promising dosing, timing and route of administration of IFN-I to the disease stage, with the final aim of making these cytokines a valuable therapeutic strategy in today's fight against COVID-19 pandemic.

Optimising Secondary Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Position Statement From the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ).

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has introduced a major disruption to the delivery of routine health care across the world. This provides challenges for the use of secondary prevention measures in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of this Position Statement is to review the implications for effective delivery of secondary prevention strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. CHALLENGES: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced limitations for many patients to access standard health services such as visits to health care professionals, medications, imaging and blood tests as well as attendance at cardiac rehabilitation. In addition, the pandemic is having an impact on lifestyle habits and mental health. Taken together, this has the potential to adversely impact the ability of practitioners and patients to adhere to treatment guidelines for the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events. RECOMMENDATIONS: Every effort should be made to deliver safe, ongoing access to health care professionals and the use of evidenced based therapies in individuals with CVD. An increase in use of a range of electronic health platforms has the potential to transform secondary prevention. Integrating research programs that evaluate the utility of these approaches may provide important insights into how to develop more optimal approaches to secondary prevention beyond the pandemic.