Antibiotic prophylaxis for leptospirosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included ⁠⁠randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.

Antibiotics for treatment of leptospirosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for the management of leptospirosis. Despite the widespread use of antibiotic treatment for leptospirosis, there seems to be insufficient evidence to determine its effectiveness or to recommend antibiotic use as a standard practice. This updated systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the use of antibiotics in treating leptospirosis, building upon a previously published Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus placebo, no intervention, or another antibiotic for the treatment of people with leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials following standard Cochrane procedures. The date of the last search was 27 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised clinical trials of various designs that examined the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis. We did not impose any restrictions based on the age, sex, occupation, or comorbidities of the participants involved in the trials. Our search encompassed trials that evaluated antibiotics, regardless of the method of administration, dosage, and schedule, and compared them with placebo or no intervention, or compared different antibiotics. We included trials regardless of the outcomes reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: During the preparation of this review, we adhered to the Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (nosocomial infection). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, proportion of people with adverse events considered non-serious, and days of hospitalisation. To assess the risk of bias of the included trials, we used the RoB 2 tool, and for evaluating the certainty of evidence we used GRADEpro GDT software. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), both accompanied by their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the random-effects model for all our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. For our primary outcome analyses, we included trial data from the longest follow-up period. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine randomised clinical trials comprising 1019 participants. Seven trials compared two intervention groups and two trials compared three intervention groups. Amongst the trials comparing antibiotics versus placebos, four trials assessed penicillin and one trial assessed doxycycline. In the trials comparing different antibiotics, one trial evaluated doxycycline versus azithromycin, one trial assessed penicillin versus doxycycline versus cefotaxime, and one trial evaluated ceftriaxone versus penicillin. One trial assessed penicillin with chloramphenicol and no intervention. Apart from two trials that recruited military personnel stationed in endemic areas or military personnel returning from training courses in endemic areas, the remaining trials recruited people from the general population presenting to the hospital with fever in an endemic area. The participants' ages in the included trials was 13 to 92 years. The treatment duration was seven days for penicillin, doxycycline, and cephalosporins; five days for chloramphenicol; and three days for azithromycin. The follow-up durations varied across trials, with three trials not specifying their follow-up periods. Three trials were excluded from quantitative synthesis; one reported zero events for a prespecified outcome, and two did not provide data for any prespecified outcomes. Antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.79; I2 = 8%; 3 trials, 367 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin or chloramphenicol versus placebo on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.17; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed serious adverse events. Antibiotics versus another antibiotic The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cephalosporin on all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 348 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus doxycycline (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.46; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cefotaxime versus doxycycline on all-cause mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.78; 1 trial, 169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus doxycycline on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.62; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or versus cefotaxime (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxycycline versus cefotaxime on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cefotaxime (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.47; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), versus doxycycline (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.66; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus chloramphenicol on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.67; 1 trial, 52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Funding Six of the nine trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources and three trials did not mention funding source. Four of the six trials mentioning sources received funds from public or governmental sources or from international charitable sources, and the remaining two, in addition to public or governmental sources, received support in the form of trial drug supply directly from pharmaceutical companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As the certainty of evidence is very low, we do not know if antibiotics provide little to no effect on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or adverse events considered non-serious. There is a lack of definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis infection, and the absence of trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes further adds to this limitation.

Modeling the Lassa fever outbreak synchronously occurring with cholera and COVID-19 outbreaks in Nigeria 2021: A threat to Global Health Security.

Nigeria struggles with seasonal outbreaks of Lassa fever (LF), with 70 to 100% of its states affected annually. Since 2018, the seasonal dynamics have changed with a stark increase in infections, though the pattern in 2021 differed from the other years. Nigeria had three outbreaks of Lassa Fever in 2021. In that year, Nigeria also experienced substantial burdens from COVID-19 and Cholera. There is potential that these three outbreak events interacted with each other. This may have been from community disruption and so changes in how people access the health system, how the health system responds, or overlapping biological interactions, misclassification, social factors, misinformation, and pre-existing disparities and vulnerabilities. We assessed the syndemic potential of Lassa Fever, COVID-19, and Cholera through modeling their interactions across the 2021 calendar year employing a Poisson regression model. We included the number of states affected and the month of the year. We used these predictors to forecast the progression of the outbreak using a Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) model. The Poisson model prediction for the confirmed number of Lassa fever cases was significantly dependent on the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, the number of states affected, and the month of the year (p-value < 0.001), and the SARIMA model was a good fit, accounting for 48% of the change in the number of cases of Lassa fever (p-value < 0.001) with parameters ARIMA (6, 1, 3) (5, 0, 3). Lassa Fever, COVID-19, and Cholera 2021 case curves have mirrored dynamics and likely interact. Further research into common, intervenable aspects of those interactions should be performed.

An epidemiological synthesis of emerging and re-emerging zoonotic disease threats in Cameroon, 2000-2022: a systematic review.

Introduction: Population factors such as urbanization, socio-economic, and environmental factors are driving forces for emerging/re-emerging zoonotic diseases in Cameroon. To inform preparedness and prioritization efforts, this study mapped out epidemiological data (including prevalence) of zoonotic diseases occurring in Cameroon between 2000 and 2022 by demographic factors. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022333059). Independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus databases on May 30, 2022 for relevant articles; duplicates were removed, and the titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened to identify eligible articles. Results: Out of 4142 articles identified, 64 eligible articles were retrieved in the database search and an additional 12 from the cited literature (N = 76). Thirty-five unique zoonoses (viral, bacterial, and parasitic) were indexed, including Cameroon priority zoonoses: anthrax, bovine tuberculosis, Ebola and Marburg virus disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza, and rabies. The number of studies varied by region, ranging from 12 in the Far North to 32 in the Centre Region. The most reported were as follows: brucellosis (random-effects pooled estimate proportion (effect size), ES 0.05%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.07; n = 6), dengue (ES 0.13%, 95% CI 0.06-0.22; n = 12), avian and swine influenza virus (ES 0.10%, 95% CI 0.04-0.20; n = 8), and toxoplasmosis (ES 0.49%, 95% CI 0.35-0.63; n = 11), although I 2 values were greater than 75%, thus there was high inter-study heterogeneity (P < 0.01). Conclusions: This understanding of the distribution of emerging and re-emerging zoonotic threats in Cameroon is vital to effective preventive and resource prioritization measures.

Perceived Hospital Stress, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Activity, and Care Process Temporal Variance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened standard hospital operations. We sought to understand how this stress was perceived and manifested within individual hospitals and in relation to local viral activity. DESIGN: Prospective weekly hospital stress survey, November 2020-June 2022. SETTING: Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Thirteen hospitals across seven U.S. health systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 839 hospital-weeks of data over 85 pandemic weeks and five viral surges. Perceived overall hospital, ICU, and emergency department (ED) stress due to severe acute respiratory infection patients during the pandemic were reported by a mean of 43% ( sd , 36%), 32% (30%), and 14% (22%) of hospitals per week, respectively, and perceived care deviations in a mean of 36% (33%). Overall hospital stress was highly correlated with ICU stress (ρ = 0.82; p < 0.0001) but only moderately correlated with ED stress (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.0001). A county increase in 10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cases per 100,000 residents was associated with an increase in the odds of overall hospital, ICU, and ED stress by 9% (95% CI, 5-12%), 7% (3-10%), and 4% (2-6%), respectively. During the Delta variant surge, overall hospital stress persisted for a median of 11.5 weeks (interquartile range, 9-14 wk) after local case peak. ICU stress had a similar pattern of resolution (median 11 wk [6-14 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.59) while the resolution of ED stress (median 6 wk [5-6 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.003) was earlier. There was a similar but attenuated pattern during the Omicron BA.1 subvariant surge. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived care deviations were common and potentially avoidable patient harm was rare. Perceived hospital stress persisted for weeks after surges peaked.

Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta Variant) in a Youth Camp Associated With Community Spread, Nebraska, June-July 2021.

OBJECTIVES: During June-July 2021, an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among attendees of a summer youth camp in Nebraska. We assessed the factors that contributed to onward transmission of disease. METHODS: The Four Corners Health Department conducted an outbreak investigation and recorded both laboratory-confirmed and self-reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 and mitigation measures employed. We generated sequences on positive specimens, created an epidemic curve to assist with outbreak visualization, and examined epidemiologic, genomic, and laboratory outcomes. RESULTS: Evaluation of 3 index cases led to the identification of 25 people with COVID-19 who interacted directly with the camp. Contact tracing revealed an additional 18 cases consistent with onward community transmission. Most (24 of 35, 68.5%) vaccine-eligible community cases were not vaccinated. We sequenced 8 positive specimens; all were identified as the Delta variant. Precamp planning incorporated local health officials who recommended wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, and using attendee cohorts to limit mixing of people involved in various activities. CONCLUSION: Low vaccination levels and poor face mask-wearing habits among attendees resulted in secondary and tertiary spread of SARS-CoV-2 and severe outcomes among young adults. This outbreak of COVID-19 at a youth camp highlights the importance of vaccination and use of other measures to interrupt opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 spread in the community and shows that vaccinated people remain vulnerable to infection when in an environment of high exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Proactive case identification and interruption of chains of transmission can help decrease the number of cases and avoid further severe outcomes.

Access, socioeconomic environment, and death from COVID-19 in Nebraska.

Our study assesses whether factors related to healthcare access in the first year of the pandemic affect mortality and length of stay (LOS). Our cohort study examined hospitalized patients at Nebraska Medicine between April and October 2020 who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and had a charted sepsis related diagnostic code. Multivariate logistic was used to analyze the odds of mortality and linear regression was used to calculate the parameter estimates of LOS associated with COVID-19 status, age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, admission month, and residential distance from definitive care. Among 475 admissions, the odds of mortality is greater among those with older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07) and residence in an area with low median household income (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.52-8.57), however, the relationship between mortality and wealth was not statistically significant. Those with non-COVID-19 sepsis had longer LOS (Parameter Estimate: -5.11, adjusted 95% CI: -7.92 to -2.30). Distance from definitive care had trends toward worse outcomes (Parameter Estimate: 0.164, adjusted 95% CI: -1.39 to 1.97). Physical and social aspects of access to care are linked to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Non-COVID-19 healthcare outcomes may be negatively impacted in the pandemic. Strategies to advance patient-centered outcomes in vulnerable populations should account for varied aspects (socioeconomic, residential setting, rural populations, racial, and ethnic factors). Indirect impacts of the pandemic on non-COVID-19 health outcomes require further study.

Fielding vaccines-challenges and opportunities in outbreaks, complex emergencies, and mass gatherings.

With the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of vaccine development, distribution, and uptake has come to the forefront of the public eye. Effectively fielding vaccines during an emergency-whether that emergency is a result of an infectious disease or not-requires an understanding of usual vaccine-related processes; the impact of outbreak, complex emergencies, mass gatherings, and other events on patients, communities, and health systems; and ways in which diverse resources can be applied to successfully achieve needed vaccine uptake. In this review, both the emergency setting and briefly vaccine product design are discussed in these contexts in order to provide a concise source of general knowledge from experts in fielding vaccines that can aid in future vaccine ventures and increase general awareness of the process and barriers in various settings.

Mumps to COVID-19: Vaccinated persons remain vulnerable when community uptake is low.

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first became available in the United States and Europe outside clinical trials in December 2020, when administration began in high-priority populations such as healthcare workers and long-term care residents. [1] Since that time, global rollout progresses with wide variation in vaccination rates by country. [2] Depending upon product and SARS-CoV-2 variant, vaccine efficacies against infection range from approximately 70 to well over 90%, higher against severe disease. Well-resourced settings are starting to focus on booster doses among high risk persons, and locations with higher vaccination rates appear to have less COVID-19 patient and community impact. Yet, in every setting, primary vaccination to as many persons as possible remains incredibly important to effective pandemic risk management. Why this is the case, why even in settings with comparatively high vaccination rates and boosting we still should make the case that more primary vaccination matters can be answered by remembering mumps, and applying those lessons to promoting vaccine access.

The size and culturability of patient-generated SARS-CoV-2 aerosol.

BACKGROUND: Aerosol transmission of COVID-19 is the subject of ongoing policy debate. Characterizing aerosol produced by people with COVID-19 is critical to understanding the role of aerosols in transmission. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the presence of virus in size-fractioned aerosols from six COVID-19 patients admitted into mixed acuity wards in April of 2020. METHODS: Size-fractionated aerosol samples and aerosol size distributions were collected from COVID-19 positive patients. Aerosol samples were analyzed for viral RNA, positive samples were cultured in Vero E6 cells. Serial RT-PCR of cells indicated samples where viral replication was likely occurring. Viral presence was also investigated by western blot and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by rRT-PCR in all samples. Three samples confidently indicated the presence of viral replication, all of which were from collected sub-micron aerosol. Western blot indicated the presence of viral proteins in all but one of these samples, and intact virions were observed by TEM in one sample. SIGNIFICANCE: Observations of viral replication in the culture of submicron aerosol samples provides additional evidence that airborne transmission of COVID-19 is possible. These results support the use of efficient respiratory protection in both healthcare and by the public to limit transmission.

Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic.

Communicating public health guidance is key to mitigating risk during disasters and outbreaks, and ethical guidance on communication emphasizes being fully transparent. Yet, communication during the pandemic has sometimes been fraught, due in part to practical and conceptual challenges around being transparent. A particular challenge has arisen when there was both evolving scientific knowledge on COVID-19 and reticence to acknowledge that resource scarcity concerns were influencing public health recommendations. This essay uses the example of communicating public health guidance on masking in the United States to illustrate ethical challenges of developing and conveying public health guidance under twin conditions of uncertainty and resource scarcity. Such situations require balancing two key principles in public health ethics: the precautionary principle and harm reduction. Transparency remains a bedrock value to guide risk communication, but optimizing transparency requires consideration of additional ethical values in developing and implementing risk communication strategies.

The future of zoonotic risk prediction.

In the light of the urgency raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, global investment in wildlife virology is likely to increase, and new surveillance programmes will identify hundreds of novel viruses that might someday pose a threat to humans. To support the extensive task of laboratory characterization, scientists may increasingly rely on data-driven rubrics or machine learning models that learn from known zoonoses to identify which animal pathogens could someday pose a threat to global health. We synthesize the findings of an interdisciplinary workshop on zoonotic risk technologies to answer the following questions. What are the prerequisites, in terms of open data, equity and interdisciplinary collaboration, to the development and application of those tools? What effect could the technology have on global health? Who would control that technology, who would have access to it and who would benefit from it? Would it improve pandemic prevention? Could it create new challenges? This article is part of the theme issue 'Infectious disease macroecology: parasite diversity and dynamics across the globe'.

Identifying Nontraditional Epidemic Disease Risk Factors Associated with Major Health Events from World Health Organization and World Bank Open Data.

Health events emerge from host, community, environment, and pathogen factors-forecasting epidemics is a complex task. We describe an exploratory analysis to identify economic risk factors that could aid epidemic risk assessment. A line list was constructed using the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News (2016-2018) and economic indicators from the World Bank. Poisson regression employing forward imputations was used to establish relationships with the frequency with which countries reported public health events. Economic indicators demonstrated strong performance appropriate for further assessment in surveillance programming. In our analysis, three economic indicators were significantly associated to event reporting: how much the country's urban population changed, its average forest area, and a novel economic indicator we developed that assessed how much the gross domestic product changed per capita. Other economic indicators performed less well: changes in total, female, urban, and rural population sizes; population density; net migration; change in per cent forest area; total forest area; and another novel indicator, change in percent of trade as a fraction of the total economy. We then undertook a further analysis of the start of the current COVID-19 pandemic that revealed similar associations, but confounding by global disease burden is likely. Continued development of forecasting approaches capturing information relevant to whole-of-society factors (e.g., economic factors as assessed in our study) could improve the risk management process through earlier hazard identification and inform strategic decision processes in multisectoral strategies to preventing, detecting, and responding to pandemic-threat events.

Antibacterial use in the age of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Balancing the use of antibacterial therapy against selection for resistance in this pandemic era has introduced both questions and guidelines. In this project, we explored how prescription of empirical antibacterial therapy differs between those with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether COVID-19 status and other factors play a role in the prescription of antibacterial therapy in an inpatient setting at a large referral academic medical centre. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether these factors differ between those testing positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Of 405 patients in the cohort, 175 received antibacterial therapy and 296 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test carried an OR of 0.3 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.49) for receiving antibacterial treatment in the first 48 h after admission (P < 0.0001) adjusting for age and procalcitonin results. Patients were 1% and 3% less likely to receive antibacterials for every year increase in age in the overall group and among those testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Younger age was found to impact use of antibacterial therapy in both the overall analysis as well as the SARS-CoV-2 negative subgroup (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01). High procalcitonin values were found to be associated with increased antibacterial therapy use in both the overall and stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Antibacterial therapy prescription differs by COVID-19 disease status, and procalcitonin results are most highly associated with antibacterial use across strata.

Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of COVID-19 and Isolation Care on Survivor Disability and Anxiety.

We conducted an assessment of disability, anxiety, and other life impacts of COVID-19 and isolation care in a unique cohort of individuals. These included both community admissions to a university hospital as well as some of the earliest international aeromedical evacuees. Among an initial 16 COVID-19 survivors that were interviewed 6-12 months following their admission into isolation care, perception of their isolation care experience was related to their reporting of long-term consequences. However, anxiety and disability assessed with standard scores had no relationship with each other. Both capture of the isolation care experience and caution relying on single scoring systems for assessing long-term consequences in survivors are important considerations for on-going and future COVID-19 and other pandemic survivor research.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: We Need to Start Now.

In this perspective, we discuss the importance of developing a vaccine to help curb transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The question remains: Once a safe and effective vaccine is developed, will the public be willing to get it? We present information from one of the first tracking polls to assess public attitudes and perceptions toward a possible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine that suggests public hesitancy over a potential vaccine, concern regarding accelerating clinical trials, and unease over the vaccine approval process. Public health experts, government officials, advocates, and others in the scientific community should respect the signals of hesitancy and communicate sensitivity, applying lessons not only to how we message, but also in how we build this urgently needed vaccine if we are to have successful uptake once available.

Utility of repeat testing for COVID-19: Laboratory stewardship when the stakes are high.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to circulate, testing strategies are of the utmost importance. Given national shortages of testing supplies, personal protective equipment, and other hospital resources, diagnostic stewardship is necessary to aid in resource management. We report the low utility of serial testing in a low-prevalence setting.

Identification and evaluation of epidemic prediction and forecasting reporting guidelines: A systematic review and a call for action.

INTRODUCTION: High quality epidemic forecasting and prediction are critical to support response to local, regional and global infectious disease threats. Other fields of biomedical research use consensus reporting guidelines to ensure standardization and quality of research practice among researchers, and to provide a framework for end-users to interpret the validity of study results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether guidelines exist specifically for epidemic forecast and prediction publications. METHODS: We undertook a formal systematic review to identify and evaluate any published infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction reporting guidelines. This review leveraged a team of 18 investigators from US Government and academic sectors. RESULTS: A literature database search through May 26, 2019, identified 1467 publications (MEDLINE n = 584, EMBASE n = 883), and a grey-literature review identified a further 407 publications, yielding a total 1777 unique publications. A paired-reviewer system screened in 25 potentially eligible publications, of which two were ultimately deemed eligible. A qualitative review of these two published reporting guidelines indicated that neither were specific for epidemic forecasting and prediction, although they described reporting items which may be relevant to epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review confirms that no specific guidelines have been published to standardize the reporting of epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. These findings underscore the need to develop such reporting guidelines in order to improve the transparency, quality and implementation of epidemic forecasting and prediction research in operational public health.