Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study.

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case management. COPCOV aims to recruit healthcare workers and other staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express if they would be interested in participating in such a study and which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study at the respective sites, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand concerns potential participants might have, to fine tune research procedures and to refine COPCOV information materials. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. The sessions were designed to encourage potential participants and research professionals not directly involved in the project to interact with those who planned the study and those conducting it. Many attendees were keen to join the study while others had concerns. Questions raised revolved around the social value and study rationale; safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance; study design and commitments. Conclusions: These sessions helped us refine information materials, identify misunderstandings about the study as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study [version 3;peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in COVID-19 case management. Participants are staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. As part of the study, we conducted a series of engagement sessions. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand possible concerns, to fine tune research procedures and to refine the COPCOV information materials. Methods: The COPCOV study was approved by relevant institutional review boards. The sessions described in this paper were part of the study. We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express their willingness to participate in such a study, which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication, and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results and conclusions: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. Issues raised revolved around the social value and study rationale;safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance;study design and commitments. These sessions helped us identify concerns people had, which helped us refine information materials as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case management. COPCOV aims to recruit healthcare workers and other staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express if they would be interested in participating in such a study and which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study at the respective sites, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand concerns potential participants might have, to fine tune research procedures and to refine COPCOV information materials. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. The sessions were designed to encourage potential participants and research professionals not directly involved in the project to interact with those who planned the study and those conducting it. Many attendees were keen to join the study while others had concerns. Questions raised revolved around the social value and study rationale;safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance;study design and commitments. Conclusions: These sessions helped us refine information materials, identify misunderstandings about the study as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

A case-control study of the causes of acute respiratory infection among hospitalized patients in Northeastern Laos.

With the advent of highly sensitive real-time PCR, multiple pathogens have been identified from nasopharyngeal swabs of patients with acute respiratory infections (ARIs). However, the detection of microorganisms in the upper respiratory tract does not necessarily indicate disease causation. We conducted a matched case-control study, nested within a broader fever aetiology project, to facilitate determination of the aetiology of ARIs in hospitalised patients in Northeastern Laos. Consenting febrile patients of any age admitted to Xiengkhuang Provincial Hospital were included if they met the inclusion criteria for ARI presentation (at least one of the following: cough, rhinorrhoea, nasal congestion, sore throat, difficulty breathing, and/or abnormal chest auscultation). One healthy control for each patient, matched by sex, age, and village of residence, was recruited for the study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from participants and tested for 33 pathogens by probe-based multiplex real-time RT-PCR (FastTrack Diagnostics Respiratory pathogen 33 kit). Attributable fraction of illness for a given microorganism was calculated by comparing results between patients and controls (= 100 * [OR - 1]/OR) (OR = odds ratio). Between 24th June 2019 and 24th June 2020, 205 consenting ARI patients and 205 matching controls were recruited. After excluding eight pairs due to age mismatch, 197 pairs were included in the analysis. Males were predominant with sex ratio 1.2:1 and children < 5 years old accounted for 59% of participants. At least one potential pathogen was detected in 173 (88%) patients and 175 (89%) controls. ARI in admitted patients were attributed to influenza B virus, influenza A virus, human metapneumovirus (HMPV), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in 17.8%, 17.2%, 7.5%, and 6.5% of participants, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any cases or controls. Determining ARI aetiology in individual patients remains challenging. Among hospitalised patients with ARI symptoms presenting to a provincial hospital in Northeastern Laos, half were determined to be caused by one of several respiratory viruses, in particular influenza A virus, influenza B virus, HMPV, and RSV.

The cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amodiaquine is a 4-aminoquinoline antimalarial similar to chloroquine that is used extensively for the treatment and prevention of malaria. Data on the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine are scarce, although transient effects on cardiac electrophysiology (electrocardiographic QT interval prolongation and sinus bradycardia) have been observed. We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis to characterise the cardiovascular effects of amodiaquine and thereby support development of risk minimisation measures to improve the safety of this important antimalarial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies of amodiaquine for the treatment or prevention of malaria were identified from a systematic review. Heart rates and QT intervals with study-specific heart rate correction (QTcS) were compared within studies and individual patient data pooled for multivariable linear mixed effects regression. The meta-analysis included 2,681 patients from 4 randomised controlled trials evaluating artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) containing amodiaquine (n = 725), lumefantrine (n = 499), piperaquine (n = 716), and pyronaridine (n = 566), as well as monotherapy with chloroquine (n = 175) for uncomplicated malaria. Amodiaquine prolonged QTcS (mean = 16.9 ms, 95% CI: 15.0 to 18.8) less than chloroquine (21.9 ms, 18.3 to 25.6, p = 0.0069) and piperaquine (19.2 ms, 15.8 to 20.5, p = 0.0495), but more than lumefantrine (5.6 ms, 2.9 to 8.2, p < 0.001) and pyronaridine (-1.2 ms, -3.6 to +1.3, p < 0.001). In individuals aged ≥12 years, amodiaquine reduced heart rate (mean reduction = 15.2 beats per minute [bpm], 95% CI: 13.4 to 17.0) more than piperaquine (10.5 bpm, 7.7 to 13.3, p = 0.0013), lumefantrine (9.3 bpm, 6.4 to 12.2, p < 0.001), pyronaridine (6.6 bpm, 4.0 to 9.3, p < 0.001), and chloroquine (5.9 bpm, 3.2 to 8.5, p < 0.001) and was associated with a higher risk of potentially symptomatic sinus bradycardia (≤50 bpm) than lumefantrine (risk difference: 14.8%, 95% CI: 5.4 to 24.3, p = 0.0021) and chloroquine (risk difference: 8.0%, 95% CI: 4.0 to 12.0, p < 0.001). The effect of amodiaquine on the heart rate of children aged <12 years compared with other antimalarials was not clinically significant. Study limitations include the unavailability of individual patient-level adverse event data for most included participants, but no serious complications were documented. CONCLUSIONS: While caution is advised in the use of amodiaquine in patients aged ≥12 years with concomitant use of heart rate-reducing medications, serious cardiac conduction disorders, or risk factors for torsade de pointes, there have been no serious cardiovascular events reported after amodiaquine in widespread use over 7 decades. Amodiaquine and structurally related antimalarials in the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended dose regimens alone or in ACTs are safe for the treatment and prevention of malaria.