Clinical accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in screening children and adolescents in comparison to RT-qPCR, November 2020 to September 2022

BackgroundRapid antigen detection tests (RDT) are an easily accessible, feasible, inexpensive, and point-of-care method in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics - established in adults as well as in children and adolescents. Despite this, large-scale data of clinical performance in the paediatric population especially regarding the influence of SARS-CoV-2 virus variants of concern (VOC) and COVID-19 vaccination on test accuracy is rare. MethodsThis single-centre prospective diagnostic study evaluates three RDT (NADAL(R), Panbio, MEDsan(R)) in comparison to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). 9,760 oropharyngeal screening samples regarding SARS-CoV-2 VOC and COVID-19 vaccination in paediatric hospitalised patients aged younger than 18 years were enrolled. FindingsRDT sensitivity was 44{middle dot}7% (157/351, 95% CI 39{middle dot}6%-50{middle dot}0%) compared to the reference standard RT-qPCR, specificity 99{middle dot}8% (9,392/9,409, 95% CI 99{middle dot}7%-99{middle dot}9%). Most SARS-CoV-2 infections considered were caused by Omicron VOC. Diagnostic accuracy of RDT depended on specimen containing viral load with a decreasing RDT sensitivity by descending viral load, corresponding with a significantly impaired sensitivity in asymptomatic children. A sensitivity of 71{middle dot}0% was obtained for a viral load higher than 106 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml suggested as infectivity threshold. No significant differences in RDT sensitivity could be observed regarding gender, symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, and VOC. InterpretationIn a paediatric population, RDT have proven to reliably detect potentially highly infectious patients with a viral load of at least 106 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per ml. Due to the low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals, the usefulness of RDT seems limited in large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening programs. FundingFederal Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF), Free State of Bavaria

What are the mental health impacts of epidemics on relatives of people affected, and relatives of healthcare workers: What interventions are available to support them? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has mainly focused on the impacts of epidemics on those people who are directly affected by the epidemic infection, or of healthcare workers caring for them. Less is known about the impact on mental health of their relatives, and potential interventions to support them. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. OUTCOMES: 28 studies were identified, sixteen quantitative and twelve qualitative. One involved health workers' relatives, and the rest covered relatives of directly affected individuals. We found considerable burden of mental ill-health in both groups. Among relatives of healthcare workers, 29.4% reported symptoms consistent with probable anxiety disorder and 33.7% with probable depression. Prevalence rates for probable anxiety disorder ranged from 24-42% and probable depression 17-51% for the relatives of affected people. One study found a 2% prevalence of PTSD and another found odds of PTSS were significantly higher among relatives of affected individuals compared with the general population. Only two intervention studies were identified and both were descriptive in nature. INTERPRETATION: Available evidence suggests relatives of people affected by infective outbreaks report mental ill-health. Having a relative who died particularly increased risk. Good outcomes for relatives of affected individuals were promoted by practical and social support, public health guidance that recognises the caring role of relatives, and being supported to see the positives as well as negatives in their situation. Good outcomes for relatives of health workers were promoted by perceived effectiveness of protective equipment. High quality evidence on potential interventions to support relatives is lacking. FUNDING: No external funding sought.

Drug-free nasal spray as a barrier against SARS-CoV-2 infection: safety and efficacy in human nasal airway epithelia

BackgroundFor SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, the nasal epithelium is a key portal for infection. Therefore, the nose is an important target of prophylactic and therapeutic interventions against these viruses. We developed a nasal spray (AM-301, a medical device marketed as Bentrio) to protect against infection by SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other viruses. Aims of the studyTo test the safety and efficacy of AM-301 against SARS-CoV-2 infection. MethodsAM-301 was tested on an in vitro 3D model of primary human nasal airway epithelium. Safety was assessed in assays for tight junction integrity, cytotoxicity and cilia beating frequency. Efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection was evaluated in prophylaxis and infection mitigation assays. ResultsAM-301 did not have any detrimental effect on the nasal epithelium. Prophylactic treatment with AM-301 reduced viral titer significantly vs. controls over 4 days, reaching a maximum reduction of 99%. When treatment with AM-301 was started 24 or 30 h after infection, epithelia that received the formulation had a 12- or 14-fold lower titer than controls. ConclusionAM-301 was found to be safe in vitro, and it significantly decelerated viral titer growth in experimental models of prophylaxis and mitigation. Its physical (non-pharmaceutical) mechanism of action, safety and efficacy pave the way for further investigation of its possible use against a broad spectrum of viruses, allergens and pollutants.

Managing intensive care admissions when there are not enough beds during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

The surge in cases of severe COVID-19 has resulted in clinicians triaging intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in places where demand has exceeded capacity. In order to assist difficult triage decisions, clinicians require clear guidelines on how to prioritise patients. Existing guidelines show significant variability in their development, interpretation, implementation and an urgent need for a robust synthesis of published guidance. To understand how to manage which patients are admitted to ICU, and receive mechanical ventilatory support, during periods of high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review was performed. Databases of indexed literature (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health) and grey literature (Google.com and MedRxiv), published from 1 January until 2 April 2020, were searched. Search terms included synonyms of COVID-19, ICU, ventilation, and triage. Only formal written guidelines were included. There were no exclusion criteria based on geographical location or publication language. Quality appraisal of the guidelines was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE REX) appraisal tools, and key themes related to triage were extracted using narrative synthesis. Of 1902 unique records identified, nine relevant guidelines were included. Six guidelines were national or transnational level guidance (UK, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand, Italy, and Sri Lanka), with one state level (Kansas, USA), one international (Extracorporeal Life Support Organization) and one specific to military hospitals (Department of Defense, USA). The guidelines covered several broad themes: use of ethical frameworks, criteria for ICU admission and discharge, adaptation of criteria as demand changes, equality across health conditions and healthcare systems, decision-making processes, communication of decisions, and guideline development processes. We have synthesised the current guidelines and identified the different approaches taken globally to manage the triage of intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is limited consensus on how to allocate the finite resource of ICU beds and ventilators, and a lack of high-quality evidence and guidelines on resource allocation during the pandemic. We have developed a set of factors to consider when developing guidelines for managing intensive care admissions, and outlined implications for clinical leads and local implementation.

A potential impact of physical distancing on physical and mental health. A rapid narrative umbrella review of meta-analyses on the link between social isolation and health

BackgroundThe imperative for physical distancing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may deteriorate physical and mental health. We aimed at summarizing the strength of evidence in the published literature on the association of social isolation and loneliness with physical and mental health. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in April 2020 to identify meta-analyses using the Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included terms of social isolation, loneliness, living alone, and meta-analysis. Eligible meta-analyses needed to report any sort of association between an indicator of social isolation and any physical or mental health outcome. The findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis. ResultsTwenty-five meta-analyses met our criteria, of which 10 focused on physical health and 15 on mental health outcomes. A total of more than 3 million individuals had participated in the 692 primary studies. The results suggest that social isolation is associated with chronic physical symptoms, frailty, coronary heart disease, malnutrition, hospital readmission, reduced vaccine uptake, early mortality, depression, social anxiety, psychosis, cognitive impairment in later life, and suicidal ideation. ConclusionsThe existing evidence clearly indicates that social isolation is associated with a range of poor physical and mental health outcomes. A potential negative impact on these outcomes needs to be considered in future decisions on physical distancing measures. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThis rapid umbrella review focuses on a timely and societally relevant issue. C_LIO_LIThe systematic literature search was conducted in three major databases from inception up to April 2020 warranting an extensive and up-to-date overview on relevant meta-analyses in the field. C_LIO_LIQuality of included meta-analyses was rated with a standardized measure. C_LIO_LIDifferent indicators of social isolation were included. C_LIO_LIThe utilized method did not allow for a quantitative comparison of associations with health outcomes. C_LI

Public responses to proposals for a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: A thematic analysis of online reader comments posted on major UK news websites.

BACKGROUND: Regular consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and dental caries. The UK will introduce a levy on the manufacturers of SSBs in 2018. Details will be negotiated over the next two years. How the UK public views SSB taxes is likely to be an important determinant of the content and success of the final policy. We aimed to capture the views, ideas and concerns of commenters on major UK news websites on SSB taxes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a qualitative analysis of reader comments to online news coverage of one proposal for an SSB tax in the UK. 1645 comments on four articles were included. Three underpinning themes influenced support or opposition to the tax: the balance between individual responsibility and autonomy, and population need; mistrust of the intention of the proposed tax and those promoting it; and variations in the perceived complexity of unhealthy diets and obesity associated with variations in what are considered appropriate interventions. Arguments under each theme were used to justify both support and opposition in different cases. CONCLUSIONS: As the final form of the UK SSB tax is negotiated, effort should be made to address the concerns we identified. Our results suggest these efforts could usefully focus on emphasising the social and environmental determinants of diet and obesity, reinforcing the benefits of the tax to the NHS, and pitching the tax as playing into a variety of different conceptualisations of obesity.