COVID-19 risk, attitudes and behaviour study (CRAB study): A knowledge, attitudes, and practise qualitative study of COVID-19 in the Royal Navy.

Introduction: Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 onboard maritime platforms spread rapidly and have high attack rates. The aim of the COVID-19 Risk, Attitudes and Behaviour (CRAB) study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practises in the Royal Navy in relation to COVID-19 prevention. Methods: The CRAB study was a cross-sectional survey, using a census sampling method, conducted in May and June 2021. An online questionnaire was distributed to all serving Royal Navy regular personnel using either the MyNavy application or via a QR code through email for a continuous 14 day period. The questionnaire was based on an existing validated questionnaire used for avian influenza epidemics. Questions investigated individual perceptions of COVID-19 seriousness, compliance with prevention methods, explored vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy (unvaccinated individuals who declined or were unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine). The chi-squared test of best fit was used to compare the demographic responses against the whole organisation, with p-value < 0.05 deemed significant. Odds ratios were used to investigate associations between demographic groups and responses to questions, with an odds ratio crossing 1.0 deemed non-significant. Results: The response rate was 6% (2,080/33,200), with 315 responses collated in the pilot phase and 1,765 in the main study phase. Male participants were less likely to rate COVID-19 as serious (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.23-0.49). BAME ethnicity (OR 2.41; 95% CI: 1.12-5.17) rated it as more serious. At the time of the study 62% of respondents had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the 797 unvaccinated personnel, vaccine hesitancy accounted for 24.2% (193/797), of whom 136 were white males. Those who had a higher COVID-19 serious rating, the most significant factor for non-adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures in both vaccinated (OR 1.61 [95%CI: 1.20-2.17]) and vaccine-hesitant (OR 3.24 [95%CI: 1.63-6.41]) individuals was colleagues' non-adherence. The most trusted source of information on vaccines was provided by the Defence Medical Services (77.2% [1,606/2,080]). Conclusion: This study has identified reasons for COVID-19 protective measure adherence, sources of information trusted by respondents and vaccine hesitancy, in the Royal Navy. The questionnaire can be used to investigate attitudes and behaviours in future emerging infectious diseases.

Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

COVID-19 risk, attitudes and behaviour study (CRAB study): A knowledge, attitudes, and practise qualitative study of COVID-19 in the Royal Navy

Introduction Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 onboard maritime platforms spread rapidly and have high attack rates. The aim of the COVID-19 Risk, Attitudes and Behaviour (CRAB) study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practises in the Royal Navy in relation to COVID-19 prevention. Methods The CRAB study was a cross-sectional survey, using a census sampling method, conducted in May and June 2021. An online questionnaire was distributed to all serving Royal Navy regular personnel using either the MyNavy application or via a QR code through email for a continuous 14 day period. The questionnaire was based on an existing validated questionnaire used for avian influenza epidemics. Questions investigated individual perceptions of COVID-19 seriousness, compliance with prevention methods, explored vaccination intention and vaccine hesitancy (unvaccinated individuals who declined or were unsure about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine). The chi-squared test of best fit was used to compare the demographic responses against the whole organisation, with p-value < 0.05 deemed significant. Odds ratios were used to investigate associations between demographic groups and responses to questions, with an odds ratio crossing 1.0 deemed non-significant. Results The response rate was 6% (2,080/33,200), with 315 responses collated in the pilot phase and 1,765 in the main study phase. Male participants were less likely to rate COVID-19 as serious (OR 0.34;95% CI: 0.23–0.49). BAME ethnicity (OR 2.41;95% CI: 1.12–5.17) rated it as more serious. At the time of the study 62% of respondents had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. In the 797 unvaccinated personnel, vaccine hesitancy accounted for 24.2% (193/797), of whom 136 were white males. Those who had a higher COVID-19 serious rating, the most significant factor for non-adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures in both vaccinated (OR 1.61 [95%CI: 1.20–2.17]) and vaccine-hesitant (OR 3.24 [95%CI: 1.63–6.41]) individuals was colleagues' non-adherence. The most trusted source of information on vaccines was provided by the Defence Medical Services (77.2% [1,606/2,080]). Conclusion This study has identified reasons for COVID-19 protective measure adherence, sources of information trusted by respondents and vaccine hesitancy, in the Royal Navy. The questionnaire can be used to investigate attitudes and behaviours in future emerging infectious diseases.

Characterisation of SARS-CoV-2 genomic variation in response to molnupiravir treatment in the AGILE Phase IIa clinical trial.

Molnupiravir is an antiviral, currently approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for treating at-risk COVID-19 patients, that induces lethal error catastrophe in SARS-CoV-2. How this drug-induced mechanism of action might impact the emergence of resistance mutations is unclear. To investigate this, we used samples from the AGILE Candidate Specific Trial (CST)-2 (clinical trial number NCT04746183). The primary outcomes of AGILE CST-2 were to measure the drug safety and antiviral efficacy of molnupiravir in humans (180 participants randomised 1:1 with placebo). Here, we describe the pre-specified exploratory virological endpoint of CST-2, which was to determine the possible genomic changes in SARS-CoV-2 induced by molnupiravir treatment. We use high-throughput amplicon sequencing and minor variant analysis to characterise viral genomics in each participant whose longitudinal samples (days 1, 3 and 5 post-randomisation) pass the viral genomic quality criteria (n = 59 for molnupiravir and n = 65 for placebo). Over the course of treatment, no specific mutations were associated with molnupiravir treatment. We find that molnupiravir significantly increased the transition:transversion mutation ratio in SARS-CoV-2, consistent with the model of lethal error catastrophe. This study highlights the utility of examining intra-host virus populations to strengthen the prediction, and surveillance, of potential treatment-emergent adaptations.

Pharmacokinetics of ß-d-N4-Hydroxycytidine, the Parent Nucleoside of Prodrug Molnupiravir, in Nonplasma Compartments of Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC), the parent nucleoside of molnupiravir, a COVID-19 antiviral, was quantified at SARS-CoV-2 transmission sites in 12 patients enrolled in AGILE Candidate-Specific Trial-2. Saliva, nasal, and tear NHC concentrations were 3%, 21%, and 22% that of plasma. Saliva and nasal NHC were significantly correlated with plasma (P < .0001). Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04746183.

An Open Label, Adaptive, Phase 1 Trial of High-Dose Oral Nitazoxanide in Healthy Volunteers: An Antiviral Candidate for SARS-CoV-2.

Repurposing approved drugs may rapidly establish effective interventions during a public health crisis. This has yielded immunomodulatory treatments for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but repurposed antivirals have not been successful to date because of redundancy of the target in vivo or suboptimal exposures at studied doses. Nitazoxanide is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved antiparasitic medicine, that physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling has indicated may provide antiviral concentrations across the dosing interval, when repurposed at higher than approved doses. Within the AGILE trial platform (NCT04746183) an open label, adaptive, phase I trial in healthy adult participants was undertaken with high-dose nitazoxanide. Participants received 1,500 mg nitazoxanide orally twice-daily with food for 7 days. Primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, optimum dose, and schedule. Intensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling was undertaken day 1 and 5 with minimum concentration (Cmin ) sampling on days 3 and 7. Fourteen healthy participants were enrolled between February 18 and May 11, 2021. All 14 doses were completed by 10 of 14 participants. Nitazoxanide was safe and with no significant adverse events. Moderate gastrointestinal disturbance (loose stools or diarrhea) occurred in 8 participants (57.1%), with urine and sclera discoloration in 12 (85.7%) and 9 (64.3%) participants, respectively, without clinically significant bilirubin elevation. This was self-limiting and resolved upon drug discontinuation. PBPK predictions were confirmed on day 1 but with underprediction at day 5. Median Cmin was above the in vitro target concentration on the first dose and maintained throughout. Nitazoxanide administered at 1,500 mg b.i.d. with food was safe with acceptable tolerability a phase Ib/IIa study is now being initiated in patients with COVID-19.

Optimal dose and safety of molnupiravir in patients with early SARS-CoV-2: a Phase I, open-label, dose-escalating, randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: AGILE is a Phase Ib/IIa platform for rapidly evaluating COVID-19 treatments. In this trial (NCT04746183) we evaluated the safety and optimal dose of molnupiravir in participants with early symptomatic infection. METHODS: We undertook a dose-escalating, open-label, randomized-controlled (standard-of-care) Bayesian adaptive Phase I trial at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Clinical Research Facility. Participants (adult outpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptom onset) were randomized 2:1 in groups of 6 participants to 300, 600 and 800 mg doses of molnupiravir orally, twice daily for 5 days or control. A dose was judged unsafe if the probability of 30% or greater dose-limiting toxicity (the primary outcome) over controls was 25% or greater. Secondary outcomes included safety, clinical progression, pharmacokinetics and virological responses. RESULTS: Of 103 participants screened, 18 participants were enrolled between 17 July and 30 October 2020. Molnupiravir was well tolerated at 300, 600 and 800 mg doses with no serious or severe adverse events. Overall, 4 of 4 (100%), 4 of 4 (100%) and 1 of 4 (25%) of the participants receiving 300, 600 and 800 mg molnupiravir, respectively, and 5 of 6 (83%) controls, had at least one adverse event, all of which were mild (≤grade 2). The probability of ≥30% excess toxicity over controls at 800 mg was estimated at 0.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir was safe and well tolerated; a dose of 800 mg twice daily for 5 days was recommended for Phase II evaluation.

Did Covid-19 hit harder in peripheral areas? The case of Italian municipalities.

The first wave of Covid-19 pandemic had a geographically heterogeneous impact even within the most severely hit regions. Exploiting a triple-differences methodology, we find that in Italy Covid-19 hit relatively harder in peripheral areas: the excess mortality in peripheral areas was almost double that of central ones in March 2020 (1.2 additional deaths every 1000 inhabitants). We leverage a rich dataset on Italian municipalities to explore mechanisms behind this gradient. We first show that socio-demographic and economic features at municipal level are highly collinear, making it hard to identify single-variable causal relationships. Using Principal Components Analysis we model excess mortality and show that areas with higher excess mortality have lower income, lower education, larger households, lower trade and higher industrial employments, and older population. Our findings highlight a strong centre-periphery gradient in the harshness of Covid-19, which we believe is also highly relevant from a policy-making standpoint.