Compassionate mental healthcare relies on a valued workforce

A healthy and valued workforce is vital for safe and compassionate mental healthcare. That was my take-home from the recent senior leadership symposium on advancing and sustaining the mental health nursing workforce.

Breath Analysis of COVID-19 Patients in a Tertiary UK Hospital by Optical Spectrometry: The E-Nose CoVal Study.

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, diagnostic technology played a crucial role in managing outbreaks on a national and global level. One diagnostic modality that has shown promise is breath analysis, due to its non-invasive nature and ability to give a rapid result. In this study, a portable FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red) spectrometer was used to detect chemical components in the breath from Covid positive symptomatic and asymptomatic patients versus a control cohort of Covid negative patients. Eighty-five patients who had a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within the last 5 days were recruited to the study (36 symptomatic PCR positive, 23 asymptomatic PCR positive and 26 asymptomatic PCR negative). Data analysis indicated significant difference between the groups, with SARS-CoV-2 present on PCR versus the negative PCR control group producing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Similar results were obtained comparing symptomatic versus control and asymptomatic versus control. The asymptomatic results were higher than the symptomatic (0.88 vs. 0.80 AUC). When analysing individual chemicals, we found ethanol, methanol and acetaldehyde were the most important, with higher concentrations in the COVID-19 group, with symptomatic patients being higher than asymptomatic patients. This study has shown that breath analysis can provide significant results that distinguish patients with or without COVID-19 disease/carriage.

Prospective, randomised, parallel-group, open-label study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IMU-838, in combination with oseltamivir, in adults with COVID-19: the IONIC trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there is a scarcity of effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2 infections (causing COVID-19). Repurposing existing medications may offer the best hope for treating patients with COVID-19 to curb the pandemic. IMU-838 is a dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitor, which is an effective mechanism for antiviral effects against respiratory viruses. When used synergistically with oseltamivir, therapeutic effects have been observed against influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in rodents. The IMU-838 and Oseltamivir in the Treatment of COVID-19 (IONIC) trial is a randomised controlled trial that will investigate whether time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19 is improved following a 14-day course of IMU-838+oseltamivir versus oseltamivir alone. METHODS: IONIC trial is an open-label study in which participants will be randomised 1:1 in two parallel arms: the intervention arm (IMU-838+oseltamivir) and the control arm (oseltamivir only). The primary outcome is time to clinical improvement; defined as the time from randomisation to a two-point improvement on WHO ordinal scale; discharge from hospital, or death (whichever occurs first). The study is sponsored by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust and funded by LifeArc. DISCUSSION: The IONIC protocol describes an overarching trial design to provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of IMU-838 (vidofludimus calcium) when delivered in combination with an antiviral therapy (oseltamivir) (IONIC intervention) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection in adult patients receiving usual standard of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been independently reviewed and approved by Wales Research Ethics Committee. In addition, required regulatory approvals were received from Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2020-001805-21, ISRCTN53038326, NCT04516915.

A Qualitative Study: Mothers' Experiences of Their Child's Late-Onset Pompe Disease Diagnosis Following Newborn Screening.

Pompe disease was added to the United States recommended uniform screening panel in 2015 to avoid diagnostic delay and implement prompt treatment, specifically for those with infantile-onset Pompe disease (IOPD). However, most newborns with abnormal newborn screening (NBS) for Pompe disease have late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD). An early diagnosis of LOPD raises the question of when symptoms will arise which is challenging for parents, patients, and providers managing an LOPD diagnosis. This study aimed to characterize mothers' experiences of their child's LOPD diagnosis and medical monitoring. A qualitative descriptive approach was chosen to gain an in-depth understanding of parental experiences. Eight mothers were interviewed about their experiences with positive NBS and diagnosis, experiences with living with the diagnosis, and experiences with medical monitoring. Interview transcripts were analyzed through conventional content analysis. Negative emotions like fear were more frequent with communication of NBS results. Participants expressed uncertainty surrounding age of symptom onset and the future. The medical monitoring experience increased worry but participants expressed that being vigilant with management reassured them. Parental emotions shifted to thankfulness and reassurance with time and education. These findings can provide guidance to providers about the psychosocial implications of receiving positive NBS results and an LOPD diagnosis.

Healthcare Staff Perceptions Following Inoculation with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine at University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination programmes offer hope for a potential end to the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We present perceptions following from a cohort of healthcare staff at the UK NHS hospital, which first initiated the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 ("Pfizer") vaccination program. Methods: A paper-based survey regarding perceptions on the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to all healthcare workers at the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust following receipt of the first vaccine dose. Results: 535 healthcare workers completed the survey, with a 40.9% response rate. Staff felt privileged to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Staff reported that they had minimised contact with patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Reported changes to activity following vaccination both at work and outside work were guarded. Statistically significant differences were noted between information sources used by staff groups and between groups of different ethnic backgrounds to inform decisions to receive vaccination. Conclusions: NHS staff felt privileged to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and felt that their actions would promote uptake in the wider population. Concerns regarding risks and side effects existed, but were minimal. This research can be used to help inform strategies driving wider vaccine uptake amongst healthcare staff and the public.

Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.