No abstract

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic on 11 March, severe lockdown measures have been adopted by the Italian Government. For over two months of stay-at-home orders, houses became the only place where people slept, ate, worked, practiced sports, and socialized. As consolidated evidence exists on housing as a determinant of health, it is of great interest to explore the impact that COVID-19 response-related lockdown measures have had on mental health and well-being. We conducted a large web-based survey on 8177 students from a university institute in Milan, Northern Italy, one of the regions most heavily hit by the pandemic in Europe. As emerged from our analysis, poor housing is associated with increased risk of depressive symptoms during lockdown. In particular, living in apartments <60 m2 with poor views and scarce indoor quality is associated with, respectively, 1.31 (95% CI: 1046–1637), 1.368 (95% CI: 1166–1605), and 2.253 (95% CI: 1918–2647) times the risk of moderate–severe and severe depressive symptoms. Subjects reporting worsened working performance from home were over four times more likely to also report depression (OR = 4.28, 95% CI: 3713–4924). Housing design strategies should focus on larger and more livable living spaces facing green areas. We argue that a strengthened multi-interdisciplinary approach, involving urban planning, public mental health, environmental health, epidemiology, and sociology, is needed to investigate the effects of the built environment on mental health, so as to inform welfare and housing policies centered on population well-being.

Although Italy is counting deaths and infected patients, what is missing in Italy and in many other countries affected by the pandemic is a robust system of epidemic intelligence that can provide much needed, solid, epidemiological data at the regional level to inform modelling of disease transmission at the population level and ultimately be used to offer effective guidance on public health action.We declare no competing interests.

Background and aims There is poor knowledge on characteristics, comorbidities and laboratory measures associated with risk for adverse outcomes and in-hospital mortality in European Countries. We aimed at identifying baseline characteristics predisposing COVID-19 patients to in-hospital death. Methods and results Retrospective observational study on 3894 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized from February 19th to May 23rd, 2020 and recruited in 30 clinical centres distributed throughout Italy. Machine learning (random forest)-based and Cox survival analysis. 61.7% of participants were men (median age 67 years), followed up for a median of 13 days. In-hospital mortality exhibited a geographical gradient, Northern Italian regions featuring more than twofold higher death rates as compared to Central/Southern areas (15.6% vs 6.4%, respectively). Machine learning analysis revealed that the most important features in death classification were impaired renal function, elevated C reactive protein and advanced age. These findings were confirmed by multivariable Cox survival analysis (hazard ratio (HR): 8.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.6–14.7 for age ≥85 vs 18–44 y); HR = 4.7; 2.9–7.7 for estimated glomerular filtration rate levels <15 vs ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; HR = 2.3; 1.5–3.6 for C-reactive protein levels ≥10 vs ≤ 3 mg/L). No relation was found with obesity, tobacco use, cardiovascular disease and related-comorbidities. The associations between these variables and mortality were substantially homogenous across all sub-groups analyses. Conclusions Impaired renal function, elevated C-reactive protein and advanced age were major predictors of in-hospital death in a large cohort of unselected patients with COVID-19, admitted to 30 different clinical centres all over Italy.

Background Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective We set-up a multicenter Italian collaboration to investigate the relationship between HCQ therapy and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Methods In a retrospective observational study, 3,451 unselected patients hospitalized in 33 clinical centers in Italy, from February 19, 2020 to May 23, 2020, with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were analyzed. The primary end-point in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received HCQ with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores, with the addition of subgroup analyses. Results Out of 3,451 COVID-19 patients, 76.3% received HCQ. Death rates (per 1,000 person-days) for patients receiving or not HCQ were 8.9 and 15.7, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found 30% lower risk of death in patients receiving HCQ (HR=0.70; 95%CI: 0.59 to 0.84; E-value=1.67). Secondary analyses yielded similar results. The inverse association of HCQ with inpatient mortality was particularly evident in patients having elevated C-reactive protein at entry. Conclusions HCQ use was associated with a 30% lower risk of death in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Within the limits of an observational study and awaiting results from randomized controlled trials, these data do not discourage the use of HCQ in inpatients with COVID-19.

Background: Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) are still a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In high and middle-income settings, immunization coverage is relatively high. However, in many countries coverage rates of routinely recommended vaccines are still below the targets established by international and national advisory committees. Progress in the field of communication technology might provide useful tools to enhance immunization strategies.Objective: To systematically collect and summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that apply new media to promote vaccination uptake and increase vaccination coverage.Design: We conducted a systematic literature review. studies published from January 1999 to september 2013 were identified by searching electronic resources (Pubmed, embase), manual searches of references and expert consultation.Study setting: We focused on interventions that targeted recommended vaccinations for children, adolescents and adults and: (1) aimed at increasing community demand for immunizations, or (2) were provider-based interventions. We limited the study setting to countries that are members of the Organisation for economic co-operation and Development (OecD). Main outcome measures:The primary outcome was a measure of vaccination (vaccine uptake or vaccine coverage). considered secondary outcomes included willingness to receive immunization, attitudes and perceptions toward vaccination, and perceived helpfulness of the intervention.Results: Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. The majority of the studies were conducted in the Us (74%, n = 14); 68% (n = 13) of the studies were experimental, the rest having an observational study design. eleven (58%) reported results on the primary outcome. Retrieved studies explored the role of: text messaging (n.7, 37%), smartphone applications (n.1, 5%), Youtube videos (n.1, 5%), Facebook (n.1, 5%), targeted websites and portals (n.4, 21%), software for physicians and health professionals (n.4, 21%), and email communication (n.1, 5%). There is some evidence that text messaging, accessing immunization campaign websites, using patient-held web-based portals and computerized reminders increase immunization coverage rates. Insufficient evidence is available on the use of social networks, email communication and smartphone applications.Conclusion: although there is great potential for improving vaccine uptake and vaccine coverage by implementing programs and interventions that apply new media, scant data are available and further rigorous research-including cost-effectiveness assessments-is needed.

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5–74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8–99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

Introduction: A hypercoagulable condition was described in patients with COVID-19 and proposed as a possible pathogenic mechanism contributing to disease progression and lethality. Aim: We evaluated if in-hospital administration of heparin improved survival in a large cohort of Italian COVID-19 patients. Methods: In a retrospective observational study, 2,574 unselected patients hospitalised in 30 clinical centres in Italy from February 19, 2020 to May 23, 2020 with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were analysed. The primary end-point in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received heparin (low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH)) with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores. Results: Out of 2,574 COVID-19 patients, 70.1% received heparin. LMWH was largely the most used formulation (99.5%). Death rates for patients receiving heparin or not were 7.4 and 14.0 per 1,000 person-days, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found a 40% lower risk of death in patients receiving heparin (HR=0.60; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.74; E-value=2.04). This association was particularly evident in patients with a higher severity of disease or strong coagulation activation. Conclusions: In-hospital heparin treatment was associated with lower mortality, particularly in severely ill COVID-19 patients and in those with strong coagulation activation. The results from randomised clinical trials are eagerly awaited to provide clear-cut recommendations.