Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility. BACKGROUND: Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment. METHODS: On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis. RESULTS: 24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

Reinfections and Cross-Protection in the 1918/19 Influenza Pandemic: Revisiting a Survey Among Male and Female Factory Workers.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights questions regarding reinfections and immunity resulting from vaccination and/or previous illness. Studies addressing related questions for historical pandemics are limited. Methods: We revisit an unnoticed archival source on the 1918/19 influenza pandemic. We analysed individual responses to a medical survey completed by an entire factory workforce in Western Switzerland in 1919. Results: Among the total of n = 820 factory workers, 50.2% reported influenza-related illness during the pandemic, the majority of whom reported severe illness. Among male workers 47.4% reported an illness vs. 58.5% of female workers, although this might be explained by varied age distribution for each sex (median age was 31 years old for men, vs. 22 years old for females). Among those who reported illness, 15.3% reported reinfections. Reinfection rates increased across the three pandemic waves. The majority of subsequent infections were reported to be as severe as the first infection, if not more. Illness during the first wave, in the summer of 1918, was associated with a 35.9% (95%CI, 15.7-51.1) protective effect against reinfections during later waves. Conclusion: Our study draws attention to a forgotten constant between multi-wave pandemics triggered by respiratory viruses: Reinfection and cross-protection have been and continue to be a key topic for health authorities and physicians in pandemics, becoming increasingly important as the number of waves increases.

Risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes among adults and children with moderate-to-severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the United Kingdom requested an evidence synthesis to investigate the relationship between asthma and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise evidence on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with uncontrolled asthma or markers of asthma severity. METHODS: High-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or oral corticosteroids (OCS) were used as markers of asthma severity, following international or national asthma guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Adjusted point estimates were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: After screening, 12 studies (11 in adults and one in children) met the eligibility criteria. Adults using high-dose ICS or OCS had a pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.33 (95% CI 1.06-1.67, I2=0%) for hospitalisation and an aHR of 1.22 (95% CI 0.90-1.65, I2=70%) for mortality for COVID-19. We found insufficient evidence for associations between markers on COVID-19 mortality in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with severe asthma are at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation compared to nonusers. Our analysis highlighted the dearth of studies in children with asthma investigating serious COVID-19 outcomes.