Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on community antibiotic prescribing and stewardship: a qualitative interview study with general practitioners in England (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners (GPs) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations), and the changing patient presentations and GP workload as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. While the pandemic disrupted the usual ways of working, it also produced opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (preprint)

ObjectivesColchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment, but its effect on time to recovery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether colchicine is effective at reducing time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community. DesignProspective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE). SettingNational trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom. ParticipantsAdults aged [≥]65, or [≥]18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell [≤]14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community. InterventionsParticipants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500{micro}g daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Main outcome measuresThe co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm). ResultsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine starting on March 04, 2021 and stopping on May 26, 2021, because the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.919 [95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.16] and an estimated increase of 1.14 days [-1.86 to 5.21] in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 [0.28 to 1.89] and an estimated difference of -0.4% [-2.7% to 2.4]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and one in usual care. ConclusionsColchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community. Trial registrationISRCTN86534580.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at higher risk of adverse outcomes in the community: interim analyses from the PRINCIPLE trial (preprint)

BACKGROUND Inhaled budesonide has shown efficacy for treating COVID-19 in the community but has not yet been tested in effectiveness trials. METHODS We performed a multicenter, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomized controlled trial involving people aged [≥]65 years, or [≥]50 years with comorbidities, and unwell [≤]14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE). Participants were randomized to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800g twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalization/death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomization to inhaled budesonide began on November 27, 2020 and was stopped on March 31, 2021 based on an interim analysis using data from March 4, 2021. Here, we report updated interim analysis data from March 25, 2021, at which point the trial had randomized 4663 participants with suspected COVID-19. Of these, 2617 (56.1%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and contributed data to this interim budesonide primary analysis; 751 budesonide, 1028 usual care and 643 to other interventions. Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group compared to usual care (hazard ratio 1.208 [95% BCI 1.076 - 1.356], probability of superiority 0.999, estimated benefit [95% BCI] of 3.011 [1.134 - 5.41] days). Among those in the interim budesonide primary analysis who had the opportunity to contribute data for 28 days follow up, there were 59/692 (8.5%) COVID-19 related hospitalizations/deaths in the budesonide group vs 100/968 (10.3%) in the usual care group (estimated percentage benefit, 2.1% [95% BCI -0.7% - 4.8%], probability of superiority 0.928). CONCLUSIONS In this updated interim analysis, inhaled budesonide reduced time to recovery by a median of 3 days in people with COVID-19 with risk factors for adverse outcomes. Once 28 day follow up is complete for all participants randomized to budesonide, final analyses of time to recovery and hospitalization/death will be published. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research/ United Kingdom Research Innovation [MC_PC_19079]; PRINCIPLE ISRCTN number, ISRCTN86534580.)

Risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes for people living with HIV: a rapid review and meta-analysis (preprint)

ObjectiveTo assess whether people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality or adverse outcomes, and whether antiretroviral therapy (ART) influences this risk. DesignRapid review with meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. MethodsWe searched databases including Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and Google Scholar up to 26th August 2020 for studies describing COVID-19 outcomes in PLWH and conducted a meta-analysis of higher quality studies. ResultsWe identified 1,908 studies and included 19 in the review. In a meta-analysis of five studies, PLWH had a higher risk of COVID-19 mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.59-2.34) compared to people without HIV. Risk of death remained elevated for PLWH in a subgroup analysis of hospitalised cohorts (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.05-2.24) and studies of PLWH across all settings (HR 2.08, 95%CI: 1.69-2.56). Eight other studies assessed the association between HIV and COVID-19 outcomes, but provided inconclusive, lower-quality evidence due to potential confounding and selection bias. There were insufficient data on the effect of CD4+ T cell count and HIV viral load on COVID-19 outcomes. Eleven studies reported COVID-19 outcomes by ART-regimen. In the two largest studies, tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate (TDF)-based regimens were associated with a lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, although these analyses are susceptible to confounding by comorbidities. ConclusionEvidence is emerging that suggests a moderately increased risk of COVID-19 mortality amongst PLWH. Further investigation into the relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and CD4+ T cell count, HIV viral load, ART and the use of TDF is warranted.