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

Hirt, Julian; Janiaud, Perrine; Hemkens, Lars G

doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111825

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have reported the effectiveness of non-vaccine public health measures and personal health protection behaviors in preventing COVID-19 [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. A systematic review and meta-analysis reported RRs of COVID-19 infection for handwashing, mask-wearing, and physical distancing of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.19–1.12), 0.47 (95% CI: 0.29–0.75), and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.59–0.95), respectively [ 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of COVID-19 is negatively associated with handwashing (relative risk [RR]: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19–1.12), mask-wearing (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29–0.75), and physical distancing (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59–0.95) [ 17 ]. Randomized trials of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as wearing a surgical mask against COVID-19 infection also reported preventive effects [ 19 ]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no VE studies have adjusted for personal protective health behaviors and preventive measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our trial is one of very few randomized trials evaluating public health and social measures for epidemic control [3, 4, 6]. For example, only two trials of face masks have been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic [17, 18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glasses Against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community (GLASSY): a pragmatic randomized trial

Fretheim

Elgersma

Helleve

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Observational studies have reported an association between use of eye protection and reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and other respiratory viruses, but as for most non-pharmaceutical interventions for infection control, no randomized trials have been conducted. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of recommending the use of glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. Methods and findings This was a pragmatic, randomized, trial in Norway from 2 February to 24 April 2022 where all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19 and no COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks, were eligible. Participants randomized to the intervention group were asked to wear glasses (e.g. sunglasses) for 2 weeks when close to others in public spaces. The primary outcome was positive COVID-19 test result notified to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). Secondary outcomes included positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report and episode of respiratory infection based on self-report of symptoms. We randomized 3717 participants. All were identified and followed up in the registries and 87% responded to the end of study-questionnaire. The proportions with a notified positive COVID-19 test in the national registry were 3.7% in the intervention group (68/1852) and 3.5% (65/1865) in the control group (95% CI for risk difference -1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test based on self-report were 9.6% and 11.5% (95% CI for risk difference -3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (31% vs. 34%; 95% CI for risk difference -3.3% to -0.3%; relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). Conclusions: Our results indicate that asking people to wear glasses may protect the public against respiratory infections, but the findings are not certain, and the study needs replication. Although the evidence is uncertain, and the effect probably modest at best, wearing glasses may be worth considering as one component in the infection control toolbox since it is a simple, low burden, and low-cost intervention, with few negative consequences.

show abstract

“…Finally, we should acknowledge that for many of the proposed interventions, we would benefit from having stronger evidence from large (cluster) randomized trials, to understand where they may work, and how much effectiveness we can expect in different populations and circumstances. While the pandemic led to many thousands of randomized trials of drugs, biologics, and vaccines (Hirt et al, 2022;Janiaud et al, 2021), only a dearth of trials were performed on NPIs (Cristea et al, 2020) and the research agenda on psychological and social-level interventions was even more thin. This is a deficiency that needs to be remedied.…”

Section: Collective Healing and Restoring Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggressive Measures, Rising Inequalities and Mass Formation During the COVID-19 Crisis: An Overview and Proposed Way Forward

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 26 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

Glasses Against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community (GLASSY): a pragmatic randomized trial

Aggressive Measures, Rising Inequalities and Mass Formation During the COVID-19 Crisis: An Overview and Proposed Way Forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About