Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 100
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(1): 62-68, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581411

ABSTRACT

To determine the effects of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for coronavirus disease on pediatric hospitalizations for infection with respiratory viruses other than severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, we analyzed hospital data for 2017-2021. Compared with 2017-2019, age-specific hospitalization rates associated with respiratory viruses greatly decreased in 2020, when NPIs were in place. Also when NPIs were in place, rates of hospitalization decreased among children of all ages for infection with influenza A and B viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, parainfluenza viruses, human metapneumovirus, and rhinovirus/enterovirus. Regression models adjusted for age and seasonality indicated that hospitalization rates for acute febrile illness/respiratory symptoms of any cause were reduced by 76% and by 85%-99% for hospitalization for infection with these viruses. NPIs in Hong Kong were clearly associated with reduced pediatric hospitalizations for respiratory viruses; implementing NPIs and reopening schools were associated with only a small increase in hospitalizations for rhinovirus/enterovirus infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Viruses , Child , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 276-292, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e047474, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501711

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults. METHOD: Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality). CONCLUSIONS: In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182044.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Adult , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Zinc/therapeutic use
4.
Gut Microbes ; 13(1): 1-9, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493512

ABSTRACT

Gut microbiome manipulation to alter the gut-lung axis may potentially protect humans against respiratory infections, and clinical trials of probiotics show promise in this regard in healthy adults and children. However, comparable studies are lacking in overweight/obese people, who have increased risks in particular of viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTI). This Addendum further analyses our recent placebo-controlled trial of probiotics in overweight/obese people (focused initially on weight loss) to investigate the impact of probiotics upon the occurrence of URTI symptoms. As well as undergoing loss of weight and improvement in certain metabolic parameters, study participants taking probiotics experienced a 27% reduction in URTI symptoms versus control, with those ≥45 years or BMI ≥30 kg/m2 experiencing greater reductions. This symptom reduction is apparent within 2 weeks of probiotic use. Gut microbiome diversity remained stable throughout the study in probiotic-treated participants. Our data provide support for further trials to assess the potential role of probiotics in preventing viral URTI (and possibly also COVID-19), particularly in overweight/obese people.


Subject(s)
Obesity/complications , Overweight/complications , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/therapy , Adult , Aged , Double-Blind Method , Gastrointestinal Microbiome , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Self Report
5.
Infect Dis Clin North Am ; 35(4): 1055-1075, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487740

ABSTRACT

Health care-acquired viral respiratory infections are common and cause increased patient morbidity and mortality. Although the threat of viral respiratory infection has been underscored by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, respiratory viruses have a significant impact in health care settings even under normal circumstances. Studies report decreased nosocomial transmission when aggressive infection control measures are implemented, with more success noted when using a multicomponent approach. Influenza vaccination of health care personnel furthers decrease rates of transmission; thus, mandatory vaccination is becoming more common. This article discusses the epidemiology, transmission, and control of health care-associated respiratory viral infections.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Guideline Adherence , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Vaccination , Viruses/classification , Viruses/pathogenicity
6.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 1745, 2021 09 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Public health strategies in the context of respiratory droplet-transmissible diseases (such as influenza or COVID-19) include intensified hand hygiene promotion, but a review on the effectiveness of different ways of promoting hand hygiene in the community, specifically for this type of infections, has not been performed. This rapid systematic review aims to summarize the effectiveness of community-based hand hygiene promotion programs on infection transmission, health outcomes and behavioral outcomes during epidemic periods in the context of respiratory droplet-transmissible diseases. We also included laboratory-confirmed health outcomes for epidemic-prone disease during interepidemic periods. METHODS: We searched for controlled experimental studies. A rapid systematic review was performed in three databases and a COVID-19 resource. Following study selection (in which studies performed in the (pre-)hospital/health care setting were excluded), study characteristics and effect measures were synthesized, using meta-analyses of cluster-RCTs where possible. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Out of 2050 unique references, 12 cluster-RCTs, all in the context of influenza, were selected. There were no controlled experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of hand hygiene promotion programs in the context of COVID-19 that met the in-/exclusion criteria. There was evidence that preventive hand hygiene promotion interventions in interepidemic periods significantly decreased influenza positive cases in the school setting. However, no improvement could be demonstrated for programs implemented in households to prevent secondary influenza transmission from previously identified cases (epidemic and interepidemic periods). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that proactive hand hygiene promotion interventions, i.e. regardless of the identification of infected cases, can improve health outcomes upon implementation of such a program, in contrast to reactive interventions in which the program is implemented after (household) index cases are identified.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hand Hygiene , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Pandemics , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
7.
J Photochem Photobiol B ; 224: 112319, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433572

ABSTRACT

The germicidal properties of short wavelength ultraviolet C (UVC) light are well established and used to inactivate many viruses and other microbes. However, much less is known about germicidal effects of terrestrial solar UV light, confined exclusively to wavelengths in the UVA and UVB regions. Here, we have explored the sensitivity of the human coronaviruses HCoV-NL63 and SARS-CoV-2 to solar-simulated full spectrum ultraviolet light (sUV) delivered at environmentally relevant doses. First, HCoV-NL63 coronavirus inactivation by sUV-exposure was confirmed employing (i) viral plaque assays, (ii) RT-qPCR detection of viral genome replication, and (iii) infection-induced stress response gene expression array analysis. Next, a detailed dose-response relationship of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus inactivation by sUV was elucidated, suggesting a half maximal suppression of viral infectivity at low sUV doses. Likewise, extended sUV exposure of SARS-CoV-2 blocked cellular infection as revealed by plaque assay and stress response gene expression array analysis. Moreover, comparative (HCoV-NL63 versus SARS-CoV-2) single gene expression analysis by RT-qPCR confirmed that sUV exposure blocks coronavirus-induced redox, inflammatory, and proteotoxic stress responses. Based on our findings, we estimate that solar ground level full spectrum UV light impairs coronavirus infectivity at environmentally relevant doses. Given the urgency and global scale of the unfolding SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, these prototype data suggest feasibility of solar UV-induced viral inactivation, an observation deserving further molecular exploration in more relevant exposure models.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus NL63, Human/radiation effects , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/radiation effects , Sunlight , Ultraviolet Rays , Animals , Cell Line , Chlorocebus aethiops , Coronavirus NL63, Human/physiology , Epithelial Cells/virology , Genome, Viral/radiation effects , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Transcriptome/radiation effects , Viral Plaque Assay , Virus Inactivation/radiation effects , Virus Replication/radiation effects
8.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(2): e0043021, 2021 10 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398597

ABSTRACT

Measures intended to limit the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a rapid decrease in other respiratory pathogens. Herein, we describe the trends of respiratory pathogens in a major metropolitan health care system central microbiology reference laboratory before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, with attention to when COVID-19 mitigation measures were implemented and relaxed. During the initial lockdown period, COVID-19 was the primary respiratory pathogen detected by multiplex respiratory panels. As COVID-19 containment measures were relaxed, the first non-COVID respiratory viruses to return to prepandemic levels were members of the rhinovirus/enterovirus family. After the complete removal of COVID-19 precautions at the state level, including an end to mask mandates, we observed the robust return of seasonal coronaviruses, parainfluenza virus, and respiratory syncytial virus. Inasmuch as COVID-19 has dominated the landscape of respiratory infections since early 2020, it is important for clinicians to recognize that the return of non-COVID respiratory pathogens may be rapid and significant when COVID-19 containment measures are removed. IMPORTANCE We describe the return of non-COVID respiratory viruses after the removal of COVID-19 mitigation measures. It is important for the public and physicians to recognize that, after months of COVID-19 being the primary driver of respiratory infection, more typical seasonal respiratory illnesses have returned, and this return is out of the normal season for some of these pathogens. Thus, clinicians and the public must now consider both COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses when a patient presents with symptomatic respiratory illness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Coxsackievirus Infections/epidemiology , Coxsackievirus Infections/prevention & control , Enterovirus/isolation & purification , Humans , Mandatory Programs/statistics & numerical data , Orthomyxoviridae/isolation & purification , Orthomyxoviridae Infections/epidemiology , Orthomyxoviridae Infections/prevention & control , Picornaviridae Infections/epidemiology , Picornaviridae Infections/prevention & control , Rhinovirus/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/growth & development , Texas/epidemiology
9.
J Travel Med ; 28(7)2021 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398121

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pre-pandemic empirical studies have produced mixed statistical results on the effectiveness of masks against respiratory viruses, leading to confusion that may have contributed to organizations such as the WHO and CDC initially not recommending that the general public wear masks during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A threshold-based dose-response curve framework is used to analyse the effects of interventions on infection probabilities for both single and repeated exposure events. Empirical studies on mask effectiveness are evaluated with a statistical power analysis that includes the effect of adherence to mask usage protocols. RESULTS: When the adherence to mask usage guidelines is taken into account, the empirical evidence indicates that masks prevent disease transmission: all studies we analysed that did not find surgical masks to be effective were under-powered to such an extent that even if masks were 100% effective, the studies in question would still have been unlikely to find a statistically significant effect. We also provide a framework for understanding the effect of masks on the probability of infection for single and repeated exposures. The framework demonstrates that masks can have a disproportionately large protective effect and that more frequently wearing a mask provides super-linearly compounding protection. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows (1) that both theoretical and empirical evidence is consistent with masks protecting against respiratory infections and (2) that non-linear effects and statistical considerations regarding the percentage of exposures for which masks are worn must be taken into account when designing empirical studies and interpreting their results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Masks , Pandemics , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Int J Infect Dis ; 104: 198-206, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385702

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Synthesis of the available evidence on the effectiveness of medical and cloth facemask use by the general public in community settings is required to learn lessons for future respiratory epidemics/pandemics. METHOD: Search terms relating to facemasks, infection and community settings were used for PubMed, the Cochrane Library Database and Google Scholar. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The review included 12 primary studies on the effectiveness of medical facemask use to prevent influenza, influenza-like illness, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The meta-analysis demonstrated that facemask use significantly reduces the risk of transmitting these respiratory infections (pooled OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81). Of the 12 studies, 10 clinical trials suggested that respiratory infection incidence is lower with high medical facemask compliance, early use and use in combination with intensive hand hygiene. One cohort study conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic demonstrated that facemasks are effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission when used before those who are infected develop symptoms. One case-control study reported that controls used medical facemasks more often than cases infected with SARS-CoV (p < 0.05). No primary study on cloth facemask effectiveness to prevent respiratory infection transmission was found. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, medical facemask use by healthy and sick individuals is recommended for preventing respiratory infection transmission in community settings. Medical facemask effectiveness is dependent on compliance and utilization in combination with preventive measures such as intensive hand hygiene. No direct evidence is currently available in humans supporting the recommendation of cloth facemask use to prevent respiratory infection transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Masks , Pandemics/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Hand Hygiene , Humans , Influenza, Human/transmission , Influenza, Human/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/transmission , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology
11.
Clin Nutr ESPEN ; 45: 26-32, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385307

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lactoferrin (Lf) is one of the key immunomodulatory substances found naturally in various body fluids, such as saliva, tears, and breast milk, and forms a vital part of the innate defense against invading pathogens. Various studies have demonstrated antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties of Lf and its protective role against respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The present meta-analysis aims to elucidate the association of Lf administration in reducing the risk of RTIs by systematically reviewing the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs. RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Female , Humans , Lactoferrin , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
12.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0251049, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388911

ABSTRACT

Respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2, are spread via inhalation or ingestion of airborne pathogens. Airborne transmission is difficult to control, particularly indoors. Manufacturers of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters claim they remove almost all small particles including airborne bacteria and viruses. This study investigates whether modern portable, commercially available air filters reduce the incidence of respiratory infections and/or remove bacteria and viruses from indoor air. We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane for studies published between January 2000 and September 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a portable, commercially available air filter in any indoor setting including care homes, schools or healthcare settings, investigating either associations with incidence of respiratory infections or removal and/or capture of aerosolised bacteria and viruses from the air within the filters. Dual data screening and extraction with narrative synthesis. No studies were found investigating the effects of air filters on the incidence of respiratory infections. Two studies investigated bacterial capture within filters and bacterial load in indoor air. One reported higher numbers of viable bacteria in the HEPA filter than in floor dust samples. The other reported HEPA filtration combined with ultraviolet light reduced bacterial load in the air by 41% (sampling time not reported). Neither paper investigated effects on viruses. There is an important absence of evidence regarding the effectiveness of a potentially cost-efficient intervention for indoor transmission of respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Two studies provide 'proof of principle' that air filters can capture airborne bacteria in an indoor setting. Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to investigate effects of portable HEPA filters on incidence of respiratory infections.


Subject(s)
Air Filters , Air Pollution, Indoor/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Air Filters/microbiology , Air Filters/virology , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Housing , Humans , Viruses/isolation & purification , Workplace
13.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(1)2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388495

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) are a leading cause of ill-health and death globally. Individual or multiple micronutrients have been shown to modulate immune function and affect the risk and severity of a number of infectious diseases. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of micronutrient supplements to reduce the occurrence of ARIs and shorten the duration of ARI symptoms among adults. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled effects of vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) on the occurrence of ARIs and the duration of ARI symptoms. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of ARI (risk ratio (RR)=0.97; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.00; p=0.028) and shortened the duration of symptoms (per cent difference: -6% (95% CI -9% to -2%; p=0.003)). The RR of vitamin D to prevent ARI was farther from the null when diagnosis was based on clinical diagnosis or laboratory testing, compared with self-report and when the loading dose was <60 000 IU. Vitamin C supplementation reduced the risk of ARIs (RR=0.96; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99; p=0.01) and shortened the duration of symptoms (per cent difference: -9% (95% CI -16% to -2%; p=0.014)). The effect of vitamin C on preventing ARI was stronger among men and in middle-income countries, compared with women and high-income countries, respectively. Zinc supplementation did not reduce the risk of ARIs but shortened the duration of symptoms substantially (per cent difference: -47% (95% CI -73% to -21%; p=0.0004)). Our synthesis of global evidence from randomised controlled trials indicates that micronutrient supplements including zinc, vitamins C and D, and multiple micronutrient supplements may be modestly effective in preventing ARIs and improving their clinical course. Further research is warranted to better understand the effectiveness that individual or multiple micronutrients have on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatment outcomes.


Subject(s)
Dietary Supplements , Micronutrients/therapeutic use , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(8)2021 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1378341

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to systematically review to find the best available evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions that have been used in the community so far. Through eight electronic journal database, 9 articles met our inclusion Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study Design (PICOS) criteria based on medical symptoms, interventions, and improvements. In general, interventions included hand hygiene, mask use, health education such as cough etiquette, hand washing and sanitizer methods. In addition, exercise and meditation were performed to improve immunity. As a result, the number of incidents and absences related to respiratory infections were reduced, the frequency and method of handwashing improved, and there were also positive effects in knowledge, attitude/perception, and performance. We concluded that it is necessary to create an environment and systematic support so that organizations or governments can determine healthy behavior at the same time as an individual approach. Furthermore, the follow-up for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and the monitoring period should be included during the study, consequently resulting in having an opportunity to continuously remind people about health behavior. The community provides information on various types of non-pharmaceutical intervention to maintain healthy management and lifestyles in the public.


Subject(s)
Hand Hygiene , Respiratory Tract Infections , Exercise , Hand Disinfection , Health Education , Humans , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control
15.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(34): e27026, 2021 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1375240

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is no definite conclusion about comparison of better effectiveness between N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health-care workers (HCWs) from respiratory infectious diseases, so that conflicting results and recommendations regarding the protective effects may cause difficulties for selection and compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment use for HCWs, especially facing with pandemics of corona virus disease 2019. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Google Scholar from initiation to November 10, 2020 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported protective effects of masks or respirators for HCWs against respiratory infectious diseases. We gathered data and pooled differences in protective effects according to different types of masks, pathogens, occupations, concurrent measures, and clinical settings. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 42020173279). RESULTS: We identified 4165 articles, reviewed the full text of 66 articles selected by abstracts. Six randomized clinical trials and 26 observational studies were included finally. By 2 separate conventional meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of common respiratory viruses and observational studies of pandemic H1N1, pooled effects show no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks against common respiratory viruses for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.13, I2 = 0.0%), clinical respiratory illness (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.09, I2 = 83.7%, P = .002), influenza-like illness (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05, I2 = 0.0%), and pandemic H1N1 for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.49-1.70, I2 = 0.0%, P = .967). But by network meta-analysis, N95 respirators has a significantly stronger protection for HCWs from betacoronaviruses of severe acute respiratory syndrome, middle east respiratory syndrome, and corona virus disease 2019 (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate and very-low quality evidence of no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks for common respiratory viruses and pandemic H1N1, respectively. And we found low quality evidence that N95 respirators had a stronger protective effectiveness for HCWs against betacoronaviruses causative diseases compared to medical masks. The evidence of comparison between N95 respirators and medical masks for corona virus disease 2019 is open to question and needs further study.


Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Masks , N95 Respirators , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Network Meta-Analysis , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology
16.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed) ; 39(9): 436-444, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1370506

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The global health emergency caused by the current COVID-19 pandemic is resulting in a huge challenge at all levels. The use of masks may reduce the spread of the infection by minimising the excretion of Flügge droplets. The objective of this study was to compile the evidence available on the use of masks in relation to respiratory infections. METHODOLOGY: An umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) was conducted. Two reviewers independently carried out the screening process, data extraction and data analysis. Discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer, and the assessment of the risk of bias of the studies was carried out using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The Rayyan QCRI program was used for the screening process. RESULTS: A total of eight systematic reviews were included. The studies analysed the use of masks in the general population, in long-term care facilities, in hospitals and at mass gatherings, and compared the effectiveness thereof in preventing infection. The results of this review revealed that the use of masks is associated with a protective effect against respiratory infections in healthcare facilities, in long-term care facilities and at mass gatherings. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the results, it seems reasonable to recommend the use of masks to the general population, but this use should be accompanied by a training programme to improve compliance, as not using them properly may increase the risk of infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Masks , Pandemics , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
17.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e046175, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363534

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.


Subject(s)
Hand Hygiene , Influenza, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Virus Diseases , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Soaps
18.
J Breath Res ; 15(4)2021 09 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361738

ABSTRACT

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are among the most common and practical control measures used globally in reducing the risk of infection and disease transmission. Although several studies have investigated the efficacy of various face masks and respirators in preventing infection, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the actual efficacy of face masks in preventing respiratory infections. We searched nine electronic databases up to July 2020 to find potential articles. We accepted trials reporting the protective efficacy of face masks against respiratory infections, of which the primary endpoint was the presence of respiratory infections. We used the ROB-2 Cochrane tool to grade the trial quality. We initially registered the protocol for this study in PROSPERO (CRD42020178516). Sixteen RCTs involving 17 048 individuals were included for NMA. Overall, evidence was weak, lacking statistical power due to the small number of participants, and there was substantial inconsistency in our findings. In comparison to those without face masks, participants with fit-tested N95 respirators were likely to have lesser infection risk (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.19,P-score 0.80), followed by those with non-fit-tested N95 and non-fit-tested FFP2 respirators that shared the similar risk, (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.12-4.36,P-score 0.63) and (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38-1.71,P-score 0.63), respectively. Next, participants who donned face masks with and without hand hygiene practices showed modest risk improvement alike (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.17,P-score 0.55) and (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.22,P-score 0.51). Otherwise, participants donning double-layered cloth masks were prone to infection (RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.42-16.27,P-score 0.01). Eleven out of 16 RCTs that underwent a pairwise meta-analysis revealed a substantially lower infection risk in those donning medical face masks (MFMs) than those without face masks (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.71-0.96). Given the body of evidence through a systematic review and meta-analyses, our findings supported the protective benefits of MFMs in reducing respiratory transmissions, and the universal mask-wearing should be applied-especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. More clinical data is required to conclude the efficiency of cloth masks; in the short term, users should not use cloth face masks in the outbreak hot spots and places where social distancing is impossible.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Masks , Respiratory Protective Devices , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Breath Tests , Humans , Network Meta-Analysis , Occupational Exposure , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 40(8): 1321-1327, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337565

ABSTRACT

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient clinics throughout the US shifted toward virtual care to limit viral transmission in the office. However, as health care facilities have reopened, evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings remains limited. To inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings, we analyzed rates of potential airborne disease transmission in medical office settings, focusing on influenza-like illness. We quantified whether exposed patients (that is, those seen in a medical office after a patient with influenza-like illness) were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next two weeks compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day. Patients exposed to influenza-like illness in the medical office setting were more likely than nonexposed patients to revisit with a similar illness within two weeks (adjusted absolute difference: 0.7 per 1,000 patients). Similar patterns were not observed for exposure to urinary tract infection and back pain as noncontagious control conditions. These results highlight the potential threat of reopening outpatient clinics during the pandemic and the value of virtual visits for patients with suspected respiratory infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Infection Control , Outpatients , Pandemics , Physicians' Offices , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...