To reflect on content, trends and quality of scientific publishing on COVID-19. In particular, to report on the systematic screening, quantitative assessment and critical appraisal of the first 10,000 scientific papers published on COVID-19 and to compare how scientific outputs matched identified research priorities and public health needs. A comprehensive research strategy was developed to systematically retrieve on a daily basis all studies published on COVID-19. From included studies we extracted: bibliometric parameters, country of studies' implementation and study design. We assigned papers to 25 a priori defined COVID-19-related topics and we described scientific outputs in relation to countries' academic publishing ranking, as well as COVID-19 burden. 10,000 scientific articles were published on COVID-19 between 20th January and 7th May 2020, accounting for 2.3% of total scientific production over the study period. One third (33%) focused on COVID-19 clinical management, with little adherence to identified research priorities. Over sixty per cent of papers were opinion pieces not reporting original data. Papers were published on 1881 different journals but with half of scientific production included in 8% of journals. The US accounted for one fourth of total scientific production, followed by China (22.2%) and Italy (9%). Never before in the history of academic publishing such a great volume of research focused on a single topic, this being likely to introduce major changes in the way science is produced and communicated, at the risk of bringing it far from its ultimate aim: informing clinical and public health practice and decision making.

Although influenza is a major public health concern, little is known about the use of spray live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among adults. For this reason, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of LAIV, especially in adults with/without clinical conditions and children <2 years, with the final aim of possibly extending the clinical indications. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were the two databases consulted through February 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A critical appraisal was conducted. Analyses were performed by using ProMeta3 software. Twenty-two studies were included, showing that LAIV was associated with a higher probability of seroconversion when compared with a placebo and considering the A/H1N1 serotype (pooled OR = 2.26 (95% CI = 1.12–4.54), p-value = 0.022; based on 488 participants, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%)). The meta-analysis also confirmed no significant association with systemic adverse events. Only rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and sore throat were significantly associated with LAIV compared to the placebo. Despite limited available evidence, LAIV has proved to be a safe and effective flu vaccination, also due to its very low invasiveness, and our review’s results can be considered a starting point for guiding future research and shaping forthcoming vaccination campaigns.

Diabetic patients are at higher risk of developing infectious diseases and severe complications, compared to the general population. Almost no data is available in the literature on influenza immunization in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). As part of a broader project on immunization in diabetic patients, we conducted a cross-sectional study to: (i) report on seasonal influenza coverage rates in T1DM patients, (ii) explore knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) towards seasonal influenza in this population, and (iii) identify factors associated with vaccine uptake, including the role of family doctors and diabetologists. A survey was administered to 251 T1DM patients attending the Diabetes Clinic at San Raffaele Research Hospital in Milan, Italy and individual-level coverage data were retrieved from immunization registries. Self-reported seasonal influenza immunization coverage was 36%, which decreased to 21.7% when considering regional immunization registries, far below coverage target of 75%. More than a third (36.2%) of T1DM patients were classified as pro-vaccine, 30.7% as hesitant, 17.9% as uninformed, and 15.1% as anti-vaccine. Diabetologists resulted to be the most trusted source of information on vaccines’ benefits and risks (85.3%) and should be more actively involved in preventive interventions. Our study highlights the importance of developing tailored vaccination campaigns for people with diabetes, including hospital-based programs involving diabetes specialists.