Ecology and results of “auto-dissemination” experiments in an enclosed garden in Rome (Italy).

<p>a and b – views of the study area with dissemination stations and sentinel and control sites; Exp. 2.1 and Exp. 2.2: frequencies (%) of dead <i>Aedes albopictus</i> larvae/pupae (in black) and of emerged adults (in white) in the first and second experiment carried out in the study area with 5% pyriproxyfen powder; sentinel sites are numbered accordingly to <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001793#pntd-0001793-g004" target="_blank">Figure 4</a>.</p

<i>Aedes albopictus</i> mortality in control and sentinel sites during the experiments carried out in Rome.

<p>PPF = pyriproxyfen concentration; T = mean daily temperature during experiments; Total = percentage of dead larvae/pupae over 250 third instar larvae in 10 control sites (CS) and 10 sentinel (SS), respectively.</p

Dissemination station (DS) used for “auto-dissemination” experiments in Rome.

<p>a – whole DS; b – higher and lower parts of DS, where arrow indicates black cotton cloth dusted with powdered pyriproxyfen; c – lower part of DS, where arrow indicates the net placed above the water level to prevent mosquitoes contacting with water.</p

Results of mixed effect logistic regression analysis on data obtained in Verano Cemetery, Rome.

<p>The model takes into account the effect of: the treatment (i.e, sentinel, SS, <i>versus</i> control, CS, sites), the replicates (i.e. Exp 1.1 and Exp 1.2) and the interaction between treatment and replicates on pyriproxyfen-related mortality. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Statistically significant (p<0.05) odds ratios in bold.</p

Overall mortality (%) in sentinel and control sites during the four experiments carried out in Rome.

<p>Experiment 1.1: 0,5% pyriproxyfen concentration; experiments 1.2, 2.1, 2.2: 5% pyriproxyfen concentration. Orange circles: sentinel sites numbered accordingly to <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001793#pntd-0001793-g002" target="_blank">Figures 2</a> and <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001793#pntd-0001793-g003" target="_blank">3</a>. Blue squares: control sites.</p

Oseltamivir for coronavirus illness: post-hoc exploratory analysis of an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in European primary care from 2016 to 2018

Background: Patients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir.Aim: To determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2).Design and setting: Exploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries.Method: Patients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache.Results: Coronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6) versus 5 days (IQR 3-8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66; P = 0.026).Conclusion: Primary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19.</div