Prepandemic Antivaccination Websites' COVID-19 Vaccine Behavior: Content Analysis of Archived Websites.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the concurrent development of vaccines offered a rare and somewhat unprecedented opportunity to study antivaccination behavior as it formed over time via the use of archived versions of websites. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess how existing antivaccination websites modified their content to address COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic restrictions. METHODS: Using a preexisting collection of 25 antivaccination websites curated by the IvyPlus Web Collection Program prior to the pandemic and crawled every 6 months via Archive-It, we conducted a content analysis to see how these websites acknowledged or ignored COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic restrictions. Websites were assessed for financial behaviors such as having storefronts, mention of COVID-19 vaccines in general or by manufacturer name, references to personal freedom such as masking, safety concerns like side effects, and skepticism of science. RESULTS: The majority of websites addressed COVID-19 vaccines in a negative fashion, with more websites making appeals to personal freedom or expressing skepticism of science than questioning safety. This can potentially be attributed to the lack of available safety data about the vaccines at the time of data collection. Many of the antivaccination websites we evaluated actively sought donations and had a membership option, evidencing these websites have financial motivations and actively build a community around these issues. The content analysis also offered the opportunity to test the viability of archived websites for use in scholarly research. The archived versions of the websites had significant shortcomings, particularly in search functionality, and required supplementation with the live websites. For web archiving to be a viable source of stand-alone content for research, the technology needs to make significant improvements in its capture abilities. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, we found antivaccination websites existing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic largely adapted their messaging to address COVID-19 vaccines with very few sites ignoring the pandemic altogether. This study also demonstrated the timely and significant need for more robust web archiving capabilities as web-based environments become more ephemeral and unstable.

COVID-19 interventional trials: Analysis of data sharing intentions during a time of pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This survey of COVID-19 interventional studies encompasses, and expands upon, a previous publication [1] examining individual participant level data (IPD) sharing intentions for COVID-related trials and publications prior to June 30, 2020. METHODS: Replicating our inclusion criteria from the original survey, we evaluated a larger dataset of 2759 trials and 281 publications in this follow-up survey for willingness to share IPD and studied if sharing sentiment has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic. RESULTS: We found that 18 months into the pandemic, data sharing intentions remained static at 15% for trials registered through ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov is a digital registry of information about publicly and privately funded clinical studies in which human volunteers participate in interventional or observational scientific research) prior to September 19, 2021 compared to our initial survey. However, a comparison of declared intentions to share IPD at the time of publication revealed a noticeable shift: affirmative intentions grew from 21.4% (6/28) in our original publications survey to 57% (160/281) in this survey. Within the subset of studies published within journals affiliated with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), positive sharing intentions are even higher (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Although intent to share data at the time of registration has not changed from our prior study in June 2020, there is growing commitment to sharing data reflected in the increasing number of affirmative declarations at the time of publication. Actual sharing of data will accelerate new insights into COVID-19 through secondary re-use of data.

COVID-19-associated psychosis: A systematic review of case reports.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the comorbidities, presentations, and outcomes of adults with incident psychosis and a history of COVID-19. METHODS: We completed a descriptive systematic review of case reports according to PRISMA guidelines, including cases of adult patients with incident psychosis and antecedent or concurrent COVID-19. We extracted patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, and outcomes, and assessed cases for quality using a standardized tool. RESULTS: Of 2396 articles, we included 40 reports from 17 countries, comprising 48 patients. The mean age of patients was 43.9 years and 29 (60%) were males. A total of 7 (15%) had a documented psychiatric history, 6 (13%) had a substance use history and 11 (23%) had a comorbid medical condition. Delusions were the most common (44 [92%]) psychiatric sign and psychosis lasted between 2 and 90 days. A total of 33 (69%) patients required hospitalization to a medical service and 16 (33%) required inpatient psychiatric admission. The majority (26 [54%]) of cases did not assess for delirium and 15 (31%) cases were judged to be of high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing awareness of COVID-19's association with incident psychosis at a population level, cases of COVID-19-associated psychosis often lacked clinically relevant details and delirium was frequently not excluded. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021256746.

Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 During Nebulizer Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Rationale: There is an urgent need to understand the risk of viral transmission during nebulizer treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives: To assess the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza with administration of drugs via nebulizer. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases, including PubMed®, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, preprint databases, and clinicaltrials.gov through December 1, 2020. Any study design in any language describing the risk of viral transmission with nebulizer treatment was eligible. Data were abstracted by one investigator and verified by a second. Results: We identified 22 articles: 1 systematic review, 7 cohort/case-control studies, 7 case series, and 7 simulation-based studies. Eight individual studies involved patients with SARS, five involved MERS, and one involved SARS-CoV-2. The seven cohort/case-control studies (four high risk of bias [ROB], three unclear ROB) found mixed results (median odds ratio 3.91, range 0.08-20.67) based on very weak data among a small number of health care workers (HCWs) with variable use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Case series had multiple potential contributors to transmission. Simulation studies found evidence for droplet dispersion after saline nebulization and measureable influenza viral particles up to 1.7 m from the source after 10 minutes of nebulization with a patient simulator. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusions: Case series raise concern of transmission risk, and simulation studies demonstrate droplet dispersion with virus recovery, but specific evidence that exposure to nebulizer treatment increases transmission of coronaviruses similar to COVID-19 is inconclusive. Tradeoffs balancing HCW safety and patient appropriateness can potentially minimize risk, including choice of delivery method for inhaled medications (e.g., nebulizer vs. metered dose inhaler) and PPE (e.g., N95 vs. surgical mask).

COVID-19 trials: declarations of data sharing intentions at trial registration and at publication.

BACKGROUND: The sharing of individual participant-level data from COVID-19 trials would allow re-use and secondary analysis that can help accelerate the identification of effective treatments. The sharing of trial data is not the norm, but the unprecedented pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 may serve as an impetus for greater data sharing. We sought to assess the data sharing intentions of interventional COVID-19 trials as declared in trial registrations and publications. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed for COVID-19 interventional trials. We analyzed responses to ClinicalTrials.gov fields regarding intent to share individual participant level data and analyzed the data sharing statements in eligible publications. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-four trial registrations were analyzed. 15.7% were willing to share, of which 38.6% were willing to share immediately upon publication of results. 47.6% declared they were not willing to share. Twenty-eight publications were analyzed representing 26 unique COVID-19 trials. Only seven publications contained data sharing statements; six indicated a willingness to share data whereas one indicated that data was not available for sharing. CONCLUSIONS: At a time of pressing need for researchers to work together to combat a global pandemic, intent to share individual participant-level data from COVID-19 interventional trials is limited.