Randomized trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a scoping review

Facial Dermatoses Associated With Mask-Wearing in the COVID-19 Era: A Nationwide, Cross-Sectional, Multicenter, Questionnaire-based Study

BACKGROUND

Daily usage of facial masks during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic influenced on facial dermatoses.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the impact of mask-wearing habits on facial dermatoses.

METHODS

A nationwide, observational, questionnaire-based survey was conducted from July through August 2021, involving 20 hospitals in Korea.

RESULTS

Among 1,958 facial dermatoses, 75.9% of patients experienced aggravation or development of new-onset facial dermatoses after wearing masks. In aggravated or newly developed acne patients (543 out of 743), associated factors were healthcare provider, female gender, and a long duration of mask-wearing. Irritating symptoms, xerosis, and hyperpigmentation were more frequently observed in this group. Aggravated or newly developed rosacea patients (515 out of 660) were likely to be female, young, and have a long duration of mask-wearing per day. Seborrheic dermatitis patients who experienced aggravation or de novo development (132 out of 184) were younger, and they more frequently involved the chin and jaw in addition to the nasolabial folds and both cheeks. Contact dermatitis patients (132 out of 147) with aggravation or de novo development tended to be female, involve both cheeks, and complain of pruritus. Aggravated or newly developed atopic dermatitis patients (165 out of 224) were more likely to be female, and had a higher baseline investigator global assessment score before mask-wearing.

CONCLUSION

Clinical features and factors related to aggravation were different according to the types of facial dermatoses.

The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In times of crises, public health leaders may claim that trials of public health interventions are unethical. One reason for this claim can be that equipoise-i.e. a situation of uncertainty and/or disagreement among experts about the evidence regarding an intervention-has been disturbed by a change of collective expert views. Some might claim that equipoise is disturbed if the majority of experts believe that emergency public health interventions are likely to be more beneficial than harmful. However, such beliefs are not always justified: where high quality research has not been conducted, there is often considerable residual uncertainty about whether interventions offer net benefits. In this essay we argue that high-quality research, namely by means of well-designed randomized trials, is ethically obligatory before, during, and after implementing policies in public health emergencies (PHEs). We contend that this standard applies to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and we elaborate an account of equipoise that captures key features of debates in the recent pandemic. We build our case by analyzing research strategies employed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding drugs, vaccines, and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and by providing responses to possible objections. Finally, we propose a public health policy reform: whenever a policy implemented during a PHE is not grounded in high-quality evidence that expected benefits outweigh harms, there should be a planned approach to generate high-quality evidence, with review of emerging data at preset time points. These preset timepoints guarantee that policymakers pause to review emerging evidence and consider ceasing ineffective or even harmful policies, thereby improving transparency and accountability, as well as permitting the redirection of resources to more effective or beneficial interventions.

Propylene glycol inactivates respiratory viruses and prevents airborne transmission

Viruses are vulnerable as they transmit between hosts, and we aimed to exploit this critical window. We found that the ubiquitous, safe, inexpensive and biodegradable small molecule propylene glycol (PG) has robust virucidal activity. Propylene glycol rapidly inactivates a broad range of viruses including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2 and rotavirus and reduces disease burden in mice when administered intranasally at concentrations commonly found in nasal sprays. Most critically, vaporised PG efficiently abolishes influenza A virus and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity within airborne droplets, potently preventing infection at levels well below those tolerated by mammals. We present PG vapour as a first-in-class non-toxic airborne virucide that can prevent transmission of existing and emergent viral pathogens, with clear and immediate implications for public health.

Using a Bayesian hierarchical approach to study the association between non-pharmaceutical interventions and the spread of Covid-19 in Germany

Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) are community mitigation strategies, aimed at reducing the spread of illnesses like the coronavirus pandemic, without relying on pharmaceutical drug treatments. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different NPIs across sixteen states of Germany, for a time period of 21 months of the pandemic. We used a Bayesian hierarchical approach that combines different sub-models and merges information from complementary sources, to estimate the true and unknown number of infections. In this framework, we used data on reported cases, hospitalizations, intensive care unit occupancy, and deaths to estimate the effect of NPIs. The list of NPIs includes: "contact restriction (up to 5 people)", "strict contact restriction", "curfew", "events permitted up to 100 people", "mask requirement in shopping malls", "restaurant closure", "restaurants permitted only with test", "school closure" and "general behavioral changes". We found a considerable reduction in the instantaneous reproduction number by "general behavioral changes", "strict contact restriction", "restaurants permitted only with test", "contact restriction (up to 5 people)", "restaurant closure" and "curfew". No association with school closures could be found. This study suggests that some public health measures, including general behavioral changes, strict contact restrictions, and restaurants permitted only with tests are associated with containing the Covid-19 pandemic. Future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of NPIs in the context of Covid-19 vaccination.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Experiment aversion among clinicians and the public - an obstacle to evidence-based medicine and public health

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for determining the safety and efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pragmatic RCTs for Covid-19 or other interventions became more positive early in the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of RCTs.

Methods

We conducted several survey studies with laypeople (total n=2,909) and two with clinicians (n=895; n=1,254) in 2020 and 2021. Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision.

Results

Compared to our pre-pandemic results, we found no decrease in laypeople's aversion to non-Covid-19 experiments involving catheterization checklists and hypertension drugs. Nor were either laypeople or clinicians less averse to Covid-19 RCTs (concerning corticosteroid drugs, vaccines, intubation checklists, proning, school reopening, and mask protocols), on average. Across all vignettes and samples, levels of experiment aversion ranged from 28% to 57%, while levels of experiment appreciation (in which the RCT is rated higher than the participant's highest-rated intervention) ranged from only 6% to 35%.

Conclusions

Advancing evidence-based medicine through pragmatic RCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among both patients and healthcare professionals.

Effect of Wearing Glasses on Risk of Infection With SARS-CoV-2 in the Community: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Observational studies have reported an association between the use of eye protection and reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but, as with most infection control measures, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of wearing glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in Norway from February 2 to April 24, 2022; all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19, and did not have COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks were eligible.

Intervention

Wearing glasses (eg, sunglasses) when close to others in public spaces for 2 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test result reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. Secondary outcomes included a positive COVID-19 test result and respiratory infection based on self-report. All analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle.

Results

A total of 3717 adults (2439 women [65.6%]; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [15.1] years) were randomized. All were identified and followed up in the registries, and 3231 (86.9%) responded to the end of study questionnaire. The proportions with a reported positive COVID-19 test result in the national registry were 3.7% (68 of 1852) in the intervention group and 3.5% (65 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report were 9.6% (177 of 1852) in the intervention group and 11.5% (214 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (30.8% [571 of 1852]) than in the control group (34.1% [636 of 1865]; absolute risk difference, -3.3%; 95% CI, -6.3% to -0.3%; relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, wearing glasses in the community was not protective regarding the primary outcome of a reported positive COVID-19 test. However, results were limited by a small sample size and other issues. Glasses may be worth considering as one component in infection control, pending further studies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05217797.

Understanding the exceptional pre-vaccination Era East Asian COVID-19 outcomes

During the first year of the pandemic, East Asian countries have reported fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 disease than most countries in Europe and the Americas. Our goal in this paper is to generate and evaluate hypothesis that may explain this striking fact. We consider five possible explanations: (1) population age structure (younger people tend to have less severe COVID-19 disease upon infection than older people); (2) the early adoption of lockdown strategies to control disease spread; (3) genetic differences between East Asian population and European and American populations that confer protection against COVID-19 disease; (4) seasonal and climactic contributors to COVID-19 spread; and (5) immunological differences between East Asian countries and the rest of the world. The evidence suggests that the first four hypotheses are unlikely to be important in explaining East Asian COVID-19 exceptionalism. Lockdowns, in particular, fail as an explanation because East Asian countries experienced similarly good infection outcomes despite vast differences in lockdown policies adopted by different countries to control the COVID-19 epidemic. The evidence to date is consistent with our fifth hypothesis - pre-existing immunity unique to East Asia - but there are still essential parts of this story left for scientists to check.

Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 - the first two years in Germany and beyond

BACKGROUND

We have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany.

METHODS

We reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE).

RESULTS

Two years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50%) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials; 18%), Iran (619 trials; 13%), India (566 trials; 12%), China (353 trials; 8%), and Spain (309 trials; 7%). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5% of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15% (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

Stay-at-home and face mask policy intentions inconsistent with incidence and fatality during the US COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many states imposed stay-at-home (SAH) and mandatory face mask (MFM) orders to supplement the United States CDC recommendations. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between SAH and MFM approaches with the incidence and fatality of COVID-19 during the pandemic period until 23 August 2020 (about 171 days), the period with no vaccines or specific drugs that had passed the phase III clinical trials yet. States with SAH orders showed a potential 50-60% decrease in infection and fatality during the SAH period (about 45 days). After normalization to population density, there was a 44% significant increase in the fatality rate in no-SAH + no-MFM states when compared to SAH + MFM. However, many results in this study were inconsistent with the intent of public health strategies of SAH and MFM. There were similar incidence rates (1.41, 1.81, and 1.36%) and significant differences in fatality rates (3.40, 2.12, and 1.25%; p < 0.05) and mortality rates (51.43, 34.50, and 17.42 per 100,000 residents; p < 0.05) among SAH + MFM, SAH + no-MFM, and no-SAH + no-MFM states, respectively. There were no significant differences in total positive cases, average daily new cases, and average daily fatality when normalized with population density among the three groups. This study suggested potential decreases in infection and fatality with short-term SAH order. However, SAH and MFM orders from some states' policies probably had limited effects in lowering transmission and fatality among the general population. At the policy-making level, if contagious patients would not likely be placed in strict isolation and massive contact tracing would not be effective to implement, we presume that following the CDC's recommendations with close monitoring of healthcare capacity could be appropriate in helping mitigate the COVID-19 disaster while limiting collateral socioeconomic damages.

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020-2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

Real-World Effectiveness of the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Japan: A Case–Control Study

The real-world effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in Japan remains unclear. This case–control study evaluated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of two doses of mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, against the delta (B.1.617.2) variant in the Japanese general population in the period June–September 2021. Individuals in close contact with COVID-19 patients were tested using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A self-administered questionnaire evaluated vaccination status, demographic data, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle, personal protective health behaviors, and living environment. Two vaccine doses were reported by 11.6% of cases (n = 389) and 35.2% of controls (n = 179). Compared with controls, cases were younger and had a lower proportion who always performed handwashing for ≥20 s, a higher proportion of alcohol consumers, and a lower proportion of individuals living in single-family homes or with commuting family members. After adjusting for these confounding factors and day of PCR testing by multivariate logistic regression analysis, the VE in the period June–July (delta variant proportion 45%) was 92% and 79% in the period August–September (delta variant proportion 89%). The adjusted VE for homestay, hotel-based isolation and quarantine, and hospitalization was 78%, 77%, and 97%, respectively. Despite declining slightly, VE against hospitalization remained robust for ~3 months after the second dose. Vaccination policymaking will require longer-term monitoring of VE against new variants.