Search

Although unplanned school closures occur every year, outside of a pandemic, only a small minority ([approximately equal to] 1%) are associated with infectious disease, whereas most are attributable to weather [...]

School-based outbreaks often precede increased incidence of acute respiratory infections in the greater community. We conducted acute respiratory infection surveillance among children to elucidate commonly detected pathogens in school settings and their unique characteristics and epidemiological patterns. The ORegon CHild Absenteeism due to Respiratory Disease Study (ORCHARDS) is a longitudinal, laboratory-supported, school-based, acute respiratory illness (ARI) surveillance study designed to evaluate the utility of cause-specific student absenteeism monitoring for early detection of increased activity of influenza and other respiratory viruses in schools from kindergarten through 12th grade. Eligible participants with ARIs provided demographic, epidemiologic, and symptom data, along with a nasal swab or oropharyngeal specimen. Multipathogen testing using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed on all specimens for 18 respiratory viruses and 2 atypical bacterial pathogens (Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae). Between 5 January 2015 and 9 June 2023, 3498 children participated. Pathogens were detected in 2455 of 3498 (70%) specimens. Rhinovirus/enteroviruses (36%) and influenza viruses A/B (35%) were most commonly identified in positive specimens. Rhinovirus/enteroviruses and parainfluenza viruses occurred early in the academic year, followed by seasonal coronaviruses, RSV, influenza viruses A/B, and human metapneumovirus. Since its emergence in 2020, SARS-CoV-2 was detected year-round and had a higher median age than the other pathogens. A better understanding of the etiologies, presentations, and patterns of pediatric acute respiratory infections can help inform medical and public health system responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population. Methods: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed. Results: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical. Conclusions: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]