Background: There may be a risk of COVID-19 transmission to rescuers delivering treatment for cardiac arrest. The aim of this review was to identify the potential risk of transmission associated with key interventions (chest compressions, defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) to inform international treatment recommendations. Methods: We undertook a systematic review comprising three questions: (1) aerosol generation associated with key interventions; (2) risk of airborne infection transmission associated with key interventions; and (3) the effect of different personal protective equipment strategies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database on 24th March 2020.Eligibility criteria were developed individually for each question. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies, and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty by outcome. Results:We included eleven studies: two cohort studies, one case control study, five case reports, and three manikin randomised controlled trials. We did not find any direct evidence that chest compressions or defibrillation either are or are not associated with aerosol generation or transmission of infection. Data from manikin studies indicates that donning of personal protective equipment delays treatment delivery. Studies provided only indirect evidence, with no study describing patients with COVID-19. Evidence certainty was low or very low for all outcomes. Conclusion:It is uncertain whether chest compressions or defibrillation cause aerosol generation or transmission of COVID-19 to rescuers. There is very limited evidence and a rapid need for further studies.Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175594.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

BackgroundBetter evidence regarding drug safety in the pediatric population might be generated from existing data sources such as spontaneous reporting systems and electronic healthcare records. The Global Research in Paediatrics (GRiP)–Network of Excellence aims to develop pediatric-specific methods that can be applied to these data sources. A reference set of positive and negative drug–event associations is required.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a pediatric-specific reference set of positive and negative drug–event associations.MethodsConsidering user patterns and expert opinion, 16 drugs that are used in individuals aged 0–18 years were selected and evaluated against 16 events, regarded as important safety outcomes. A cross-table of unique drug–event pairs was created. Each pair was classified as potential positive or negative control based on information from the drug’s Summary of Product Characteristics and Micromedex. If both information sources consistently listed the event as an adverse event, the combination was reviewed as potential positive control. If both did not, the combination was evaluated as potential negative control. Further evaluation was based on published literature.ResultsSelected drugs include ibuprofen, flucloxacillin, domperidone, methylphenidate, montelukast, quinine, and cyproterone/ethinylestradiol. Selected events include bullous eruption, aplastic anemia, ventricular arrhythmia, sudden death, acute kidney injury, psychosis, and seizure. Altogether, 256 unique combinations were reviewed, yielding 37 positive (17 with evidence from the pediatric population and 20 with evidence from adults only) and 90 negative control pairs, with the remainder being unclassifiable.ConclusionWe propose a drug–event reference set that can be used to compare different signal detection methods in the pediatric population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0265-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo systemically review and critically appraise published studies of the association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19, including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv and BioRxiv preprint databases. COVID-19 databases of the WHO, Cochrane, CEBM Oxford and Bern University up to 10 June 2020.Study selectionStudies that assessed vitamin D supplementation and/or low serum vitamin D in patients acutely ill with, or at risk of, severe betacoronavirus infection (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2).Data extractionTwo authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black Quality Assessment Checklist.ResultsSearches elicited 449 papers, 59 studies were eligible full-text assessment and 4 met the eligibility criteria of this review. The four studies were narratively synthesised and included (1) a cross-sectional study (n=107) suggesting an inverse association between serum vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2; (2) a retrospective cohort study (348 598 participants, 449 cases) in which univariable analysis showed that vitamin D protects against COVID-19; (3) an ecological country level study demonstrating a negative correlation between vitamin D and COVID-19 case numbers and mortality; and (4) a case–control survey (n=1486) showing cases with confirmed/probable COVID-19 reported lower vitamin D supplementation. All studies were at high/unclear risk of bias.ConclusionThere is no robust evidence of a negative association between vitamin D and COVID-19. No relevant randomised controlled trials were identified and there is no robust peer-reviewed published evidence of association between vitamin D levels and severity of symptoms or mortality due to COVID-19. Guideline producers should acknowledge that benefits of vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 are as yet unproven despite increasing interest.

No abstract