ABSTRACT
BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes. Novel or repurposed antiviral drugs may reduce infection and disease severity through reducing viral replication and inflammation. ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of antiviral agents (ciclesonide, niclosamide) for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in care home residents. DesignCluster-randomised open-label blinded endpoint platform clinical trial testing antiviral agents in a post-exposure prophylaxis paradigm. SettingCare homes across all four United Kingdom member countries. ParticipantsCare home residents 65 years of age or older. InterventionsCare homes were to be allocated at random by computer to 42 days of antiviral agent plus standard care versus standard of care and followed for 60 days after randomisation. Main outcome measuresThe primary four-level ordered categorical outcome with participants classified according to the most serious of all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, SARS-CoV-2 infection and no infection. Analysis using ordinal logistic regression was by intention to treat. Other outcomes included the components of the primary outcome and transmission. ResultsDelays in contracting between NIHR and the manufacturers of potential antiviral agents significantly delayed any potential start date. Having set up the trial (protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, routine data algorithms, training materials), the trial was stopped in September 2021 prior to contracting of care homes and general practitioners in view of the success of vaccination in care homes with significantly reduced infections, hospitalisations and deaths. As a result, the sample size target (based on COVID-19 rates and deaths occurring in February-June 2020) became unfeasible. LimitationsCare home residents were not approached about the trial and so were not consented and did not receive treatment. Hence, the feasibility of screening, consent, treatment and data acquisition, and potential benefit of post exposure prophylaxis were never tested. Further, contracting between the University of Nottingham and the PIs, GPs and care homes was not completed, so the feasibility of contracting with all the different groups at the scale needed was not tested. ConclusionsThe role of post exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents was not tested because of changes in COVID-19 incidence, prevalence and virulence as a consequence of the vaccination programme that rendered the study unfeasible. Significant progress was made in describing and developing the infrastructure necessary for a large scale Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Products in care homes in all four UK nations. Future workThe role of post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents remains to be defined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes during a pandemic need to be removed before such studies are possible in the required short timescale.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , InflammationABSTRACT
Background People living in care homes have experienced devastating impact from COVID-19. As interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 are developed and evaluated, there is an urgent need for researchers to agree on the outcomes used when evaluating their effectiveness. Having an agreed set of outcomes that are used in all relevant trials can ensure that study results can be compared.Objective The aim of the study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission in care homes.Methods The study used established COS methodology. A list of candidate outcomes was identified by reviewing registered trials to evaluate interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes. Seventy key stakeholders participated in a Delphi survey, rating the candidate outcomes on a nine-point scale over two rounds, with the opportunity to propose additional outcomes. Stakeholders included care home representatives (n = 19), healthcare professionals (n = 20), people with personal experience of care homes (n = 7), researchers (n = 15) and others (n = 9). Outcomes were eligible for inclusion if they met an a priori threshold. A consensus meeting with stakeholders resulted in agreement of the final outcome set.Results Following the Delphi and consensus meeting, twenty-four outcomes were recommended for inclusion. These are grouped across four domains of infection, severity of illness, mortality, and those specific to interventions. Due to the considerable heterogeneity between care homes, residents, and interventions, the relevance and importance of outcomes may differ between trial contexts. Intervention specific outcomes would be included only where relevant to a given trial, thus reducing the measurement burden.Conclusion Using a rapid response approach, a COS for COVID-19 prevention interventions in care homes has been developed. Future work should focus on identifying instruments for measuring these outcomes, and the interpretation and application of the COS across different trial contexts. Beyond COVID-19, the outcomes identified in this COS may have relevance to other infectious diseases in care homes, and the rapid response approach may be useful as preparation for future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundInfections cause considerable care home morbidity and mortality. Nitric oxide (NO) has broad-spectrum anti-viral, bacterial and yeast activity in vitro. We assessed the feasibility of supplementing dietary nitrate (NO substrate) intake in care home residents.MethodsWe performed a cluster-randomised placebo-controlled trial in UK residential and nursing care home residents and compared nitrate containing (400 mg) versus free (0 mg daily) beetroot juice given for 60 days. Outcomes comprised feasibility of recruitment, adherence, salivary and urinary [nitrate], and ordinal infection/clinical events.ResultsOf 30 targeted care homes in late 2020, 16 expressed interest and only 6 participated. 49 residents were recruited (median 8 [interquartile range 7–12] per home), mean (standard deviation) age 82 (8) years, with proxy consent 41 (84%), advance directive for hospital non-admission 8 (16%) and ≥ 1 doses of COVID-19 vaccine 37 (82%). Background dietary nitrate was < 30% of acceptable daily intake. 34 (76%) residents received > 50% of juice. Residents randomised to nitrate vs placebo had higher urinary nitrate levels, median 50 [18–175] v 18 [10–50] mg/L, difference 25 [0–90]. Data paucity precluded clinical between-group comparisons; the outcome distribution was: no infection 32 (67%), uncomplicated infection 0, infection requiring healthcare support 11 (23%), all-cause hospitalisation 5 (10%), all-cause mortality 0. Urinary tract infections were most common.ConclusionsRecruiting UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was partially successful. Supplemented dietary nitrate was tolerated and elevated urinary [nitrate]. Together, infections, hospitalisations and deaths occurred in 33% of residents over 60 days. A larger trial is now required.RegistrationISRCTN51124684
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: COVID-19 has caused high morbidity and mortality in UK care homes. Vaccinating staff members and residents will protect care homes from severe clinical cases. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine first doses in care homes has been higher among residents compared to staff members. Methods: We aimed to identify causes of lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst care home staff members within the Liverpool City Council region. An anonymised online survey was distributed to all care home managers between the 21st and the 29th of January 2021. Descriptive analysis was performed on responses. Results: 46/87 (53%) of Liverpool care homes responded. The mean staff vaccination rate per home was 51.4% (95% CI 43.9-58.8%). The most common reasons for staff not receiving the vaccine were: concerns about lack of vaccine research (37.0%), staff being off-site during vaccination sessions (36.5%), pregnancy and fertility concerns (5.6%), and concerns about allergic reactions (3.2%). Care home managers reported the necessity to combat vaccine hesitancy through meetings and conversations with health professionals, and provision of supporting evidence to dispel vaccine misinformation. Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy was the main cause for reduced vaccine uptake among care home staff members. These concerns could be addressed by targeted evidence-based training, and a public health communication campaign to build vaccine confidence and increase acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. The speed of vaccination roll-out has also led to unexpected logistical issues that lowered vaccine uptake rates. Addressing both these challenges could increase uptake by more than 40%.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug HypersensitivityABSTRACT
Background: Point-of-care (POC) tests for COVID-19 could relieve pressure on isolation resource, support infection prevention and control, and help commence more timely and appropriate treatment. We aimed to undertake a systematic review and pooled diagnostic test accuracy study of available individual patient data (IPD) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial POC test (FebriDx) in patients with suspected COVID-19. Methods: A literature search was performed on the 1st of October 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy statistics of the FebriDx POC test versus real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Studies were screened for risk of bias. IPD were sought from studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Logistic regression was performed to investigate the study effect on the outcome of the RT-PCR test result in order to determine whether it was appropriate to pool results. Diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: 15 studies were screened, and we included two published studies with 527 hospitalised patients. 523 patients had valid FebriDx results for Myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA), an antiviral host response protein. The FebriDx test produced a pooled sensitivity of 0.920 (95% CI: 0.875-0.950) and specificity of 0.862 (0.819-0.896) compared with RT-PCR, where there was an estimated true COVID-19 prevalence of 0.405 (0.364-0.448) and overall FebriDx test yield was 99.2%. Patients were tested at a median of 4 days [interquartile range: 2:9] after symptom onset. No differences were found in a sub-group analysis of time tested since the onset of symptoms. Conclusions: Based on a large sample of patients from two studies during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the FebriDx POC test had reasonable diagnostic accuracy in a hospital setting with high COVID-19 prevalence, out of influenza season. More research is required to determine how FebriDx would perform in other healthcare settings with higher or lower COVID-19 prevalence, different patient populations, or when other respiratory infections are in circulation.