Developing a peer-led intervention to promote COVID-19 testing in low-income housing settings.

Background: The Housing Collaborative project at Eastern Virginia Medical School has developed a method of adapting public health guidance from public housing communities, which face tremendous health challenges in cardiometabolic health, cancer, and other major health conditions. In this paper, we describe how academic and community partners in the Housing Collaborative came together to do this work with a focus on COVID-19 testing in the context of the emerging pandemic. Methods: The academic team used virtual community engagement methods to interact with the Housing Collaborative Community Advisory Board (HCCAB) and a separate cohort of research participants (N = 102) recruited into a study of distrust in COVID-19 guidance. We conducted a series of 44 focus group interviews with participants on related topics. Results from these interviews were discussed with the HCCAB. We used the collaborative intervention planning framework to inform adaptation of public health guidance on COVID-19 testing delivered in low-income housing settings by including all relevant perspectives. Results: Participants reported several important barriers to COVID-19 testing related to distrust in the tests and those administering them. Distrust in housing authorities and how they might misuse positive test results seemed to further undermine decision making about COVID-19 testing. Pain associated with testing was also a concern. To address these concerns, a peer-led testing intervention was proposed by the Housing Collaborative. A second round of focus group interviews was then conducted, in which participants reported their approval of the proposed intervention. Conclusion: Although the COVID-19 pandemic was not our initial focus, we were able to identify a number of barriers to COVID-19 testing in low-income housing settings that can be addressed with adapted public health guidance. We struck a balance between community input and scientific rigor and obtained high quality, honest feedback to inform evidence-based recommendations to guide decisions about health.

Comprehensive adjusted outcome data are needed to assess the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients with COVID-19: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Determining how prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy influences outcomes in cancer patients presenting with COVID-19 is essential for patient management but must account for confounding variables. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting adjusted effects of ICIs on survival, severe events, or hospitalisation in cancer patients with COVID-19 based on variables including age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension (HTN), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other comorbidities. When adjusted effects were unavailable, unadjusted data were analysed. RESULTS: Of 42 observational studies (38 retrospective), 7 reported adjusted outcomes for ICIs and 2 provided sufficient individual patient data to calculate adjusted outcomes. In eight studies, adjusted outcomes were based on ≤7 variables. Over all studies, only one included >100 ICI patients while 26 included <10. ICIs did not alter the odds ratio (95%CI) (OR) of death significantly (random effects model), across adjusted (n = 8) [1.31 (0.58-2.95) p = 0.46; I2  = 42%, p = 0.10], unadjusted (n = 30) [1.06 (0.85-1.32) p = 0.58; I2  = 0%, p = 0.76] or combined [1.09 (0.88;1.36) p = 0.41; I2  = 0%, p = 0.5)] studies. Similarly, ICIs did not alter severe events significantly across adjusted (n = 5) [1.20 (0.30-4.74) p = 0.73; I2  = 52%, p = 0.08], unadjusted (n = 19) [(1.23 (0.87-1.75) p = 0.23; I2  = 16%, p = 0.26] or combined [1.26 (0.90-1.77) p = 0.16; I2  = 25%, p = 0.14] studies. Two studies provided adjusted hospitalisation data and when combined with 13 unadjusted studies, ICIs did not alter hospitalisation significantly [1.19 (0.85-1.68) p = 029; I2  = 5%, p = 0.40]. Results of sensitivity analyses examining ICI effects based on 5 variables were inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Across studies with adjusted and unadjusted results, ICIs did not alter outcomes significantly. But studies with comprehensive adjusted outcome data controlling for confounding variables are necessary to determine whether ICIs impact COVID-19 outcomes in cancer patients.

Effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine treatment on non-SARS-CoV2 viral infections: A systematic review of clinical studies.

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been used as antiviral agents for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection. We performed a systematic review to examine whether prior clinical studies that compared the effects of CQ and HCQ to a control for the treatment of non-SARS-CoV2 infection supported the use of these agents in the present SARS-CoV2 outbreak. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science (PROSPERO CRD42020183429) were searched from inception through 2 April 2020 without language restrictions. Of 1766 retrieved reports, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective controlled studies and one retrospective study. CQ or HCQ were compared to control for the treatment of infectious mononucleosis (EBV, n = 4), warts (human papillomavirus, n = 2), chronic HIV infection (n = 6), acute chikungunya infection (n = 1), acute dengue virus infection (n = 2), chronic HCV (n = 2), and as preventive measures for influenza infection (n = 1). Survival was not evaluated in any study. For HIV, the virus that was most investigated, while two early studies suggested HCQ reduced viral levels, four subsequent ones did not, and in two of these CQ or HCQ increased viral levels and reduced CD4 counts. Overall, three studies concluded CQ or HCQ were effective; four concluded further research was needed to assess the treatments' effectiveness; and 11 concluded that treatment was ineffective or potentially harmful. Prior controlled clinical trials with CQ and HCQ for non-SARS-CoV2 viral infections do not support these agents' use for the SARS-CoV2 outbreak.