COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Medical Mistrust, and Mattering in Ethnically Diverse Communities.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine continues to be lower in ethnically diverse communities in the UK even though they are disproportionally affected by the negative effects of the virus. To better understand why uptake is lower, we explored factors that may underpin vaccine hesitancy and intention to vaccinate in these communities with an emphasis on medical mistrust and feelings of mattering. DESIGN: One hundred and sixty-one adults from ethnically diverse backgrounds who had not had a COVID-19 vaccination completed an online questionnaire that contained closed (quantitative) and open (qualitative) questions. RESULTS: Analyses of quantitative questions revealed that medical mistrust, but not feelings of mattering, was related to COVID-19 hesitancy and likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccination. Of the three components of medical mistrust, suspicion was the only unique predictor and was related to higher hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine and lower likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Analyses of the responses to the qualitative questions were organised into four themes: (1) Beliefs that taking the vaccine is an important social responsibility; (2) Experiences of pressure to take the vaccine and limited choice; (3) General mistrust linked to personal experiences and the health system; (4) Being concerned about social/medical restrictions if not vaccinated. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that medical mistrust may partly explain why uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is lower in ethnically diverse communities in the UK and appears to play a role in how people weigh a sense of responsibility and pressure against health and social concerns in making the decision to be vaccinated.

Quantifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission dynamics across global settings: a systematic analysis.

The degree to which individual heterogeneity in the production of secondary cases ("superspreading") affects tuberculosis (TB) transmission has not been systematically studied. We searched for population-based or surveillance studies in which whole genome sequencing was used to estimate TB transmission and the size distributions of putative TB transmission clusters were enumerated. We fit cluster size distribution data to a negative binomial branching process model to jointly infer the transmission parameters $R$ (the reproductive number) and dispersion parameter, $k$, which quantifies the propensity of superspreading in a population (generally, lower values of $k$ ($<1.0$) suggest increased heterogeneity). Of 4,796 citations identified in our initial search, nine studies met inclusion criteria ($n=5$ all TB; $n=4$ drug resistant TB) from eight global settings. Estimated $R$ values (range: 0.10, 0.73) were below 1.0, consistent with declining epidemics in the included settings; estimated $k$ values were well below 1.0 (range: 0.02, 0.48), indicating the presence of substantial individual-level heterogeneity in transmission across all settings. We estimated that a minority of cases (range 2-31%) drive the majority (80%) of ongoing transmission at the population level. Identifying sources of heterogeneity and accounting for them in TB control may have a considerable impact on mitigating TB transmission.

Long-Term Follow-up of Subjects With Iliac Occlusive Disease Treated With the Viabahn VBX Balloon-Expandable Endoprosthesis.

INTRODUCTION: This physician-initiated study provides 5-year (i.e., long-term) treatment durability data from 3 top recruitment sites that participated in the prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, single-arm VBX FLEX clinical study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02080871). It evaluates the long-term treatment durability of the GORE VIABAHN VBX Balloon Expandable Endoprosthesis (VBX Stent-Graft) in the treatment of subjects with de novo or restenotic aortoiliac lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 59 subjects with 94 treated lesions were enrolled at the 3 participating sites from the original 140 intent-to-treat subjects in the VBX FLEX study. The primary durability endpoint was long-term primary patency. Secondary long-term outcomes included freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), freedom from target vessel revascularization (TVR), as well as resting ankle-brachial index (ABI), Rutherford category, EuroQol 5 Dimensions, and Walking Impairment status. RESULTS: Fifty-nine subjects participated and twenty-eight (47.5%) were available through the end of the study at 5-year follow-up (the median follow-up time was 6.6 years due to complications resulting from COVID-19 precautions). At 3 and 5 years, the Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from all-cause mortality were 94.5% and 81.7%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for primary patency at 3 and 5 years were 94.0% and 89.5% (by lesion) and 91.7% and 84.4% (by subject). Primary assisted patency at 3 and 5 years were 93.3% and 93.3%. Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from TLR at 5 years was 89.1%. The majority of subjects were asymptomatic (Rutherford category 0) at 3 years (29/59; 72%), and at 5-year follow-up (18/28; 64%). The 5-year mean resting ankle-brachial index was 0.95±0.18, an improvement of 0.15±0.26 from the baseline (p<0.001). Quality of life measures also showed sustained improvement through long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: The 5-year long-term follow-up data underscore the robustness and durability of the Viabahn Balloon-Expandable Endoprosthesis for treating aortoiliac occlusive disease. CLINICAL IMPACT: Durable improvement after endovascular treatment of iliac occlusive disease is clinically important because many of these patients are claudicants with significant life expectancy. This study is the first to evaluate the long-term outcomes in patients with iliac occlusive disease treated with the Viabahn VBX balloon-expandable endopirostheses. The study reports excellent long-term patency outcomes with prolonged clinical benefit. These durable results are likely to be an important consideration for clinicians undertaking iliac artery revascularization procedures.

Physical Activity in Adults with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder: A Large Cross-Sectional Survey Exploring Patterns, Preferences, Barriers, and Motivating Factors.

Adults with severe mental ill health may have specific attitudes toward physical activity. To inform intervention development, we conducted a survey to assess the physical activity patterns, preferences, barriers, and motivations of adults with severe mental ill health living in the community. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and logistic regressions were used to explore relationships between physical activity status and participant characteristics. Five-hundred and twenty-nine participants (58% male, mean age 49.3 years) completed the survey. Large numbers were insufficiently active and excessively sedentary. Self-reported levels of physical activity below that recommended in national guidelines were associated with professional inactivity, consumption of fewer than five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, older age, and poor mental health. Participants indicated a preference for low-intensity activities and physical activity that they can do on their own, at their own time and pace, and close to home. The most commonly endorsed source of support was social support from family and friends. Common motivations included improving mental health, physical fitness, and energy levels. However, poor mental and physical health and being too tired were also common barriers. These findings can inform the development of physical activity interventions for this group of people.

Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19 (SWiM-C): twelve-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial of a web-based, ACT-based, guided self-help intervention.

OBJECTIVES: We developed a guided self-help intervention (Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19, "SWiM-C") to support adults with overweight or obesity in their weight management during the COVID-19 pandemic. This parallel, two-group trial (ISRCTN12107048) evaluated the effect of SWiM-C on weight and determinants of weight management over twelve months. METHODS: Participants (≥18 years, body-mass-index ≥25 kg/m2) were randomised to the SWiM-C intervention or to a standard advice group (unblinded). Participants completed online questionnaires at baseline, four months, and twelve months. The primary outcome was change in self-reported weight from baseline to twelve months; secondary outcomes were eating behaviour (uncontrolled eating, emotional eating, cognitive restraint of food intake), experiential avoidance, depression, anxiety, stress, wellbeing and physical activity. INTERVENTIONS: SWiM-C is based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Participants had access to an online web platform with 12 weekly modules and email and telephone contact with a trained, non-specialist coach. Standard advice was a leaflet on managing weight and mood during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 388 participants were randomised (SWiM-C: n = 192, standard advice: n = 196). The baseline-adjusted difference in weight change between SWiM-C (n = 119) and standard advice (n = 147) was -0.81 kg (95% CI: -2.24 to 0.61 kg). SWiM-C participants reported a reduction in experiential avoidance (-2.45 [scale:10-70], 95% CI: -4.75 to -0.15), uncontrolled eating (-3.36 [scale: 0-100], 95% CI: -5.66 to -1.06), and emotional eating (-4.14 [scale:0-100], 95% CI: -7.25 to -1.02) and an increase in physical activity (8.96 [MET-min/week], 95% CI: 0.29 to 17.62) compared to standard advice participants. We found no evidence of an effect on remaining outcomes. No adverse events/side effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst we were unable to conclude that the intervention had an effect on weight, SWiM-C improved eating behaviours, experiential avoidance and physical activity. Further refinement of the intervention is necessary to ensure meaningful effects on weight prior to implementation in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 12107048.

Comparing Prospective Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Rates During Successive Waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures.

Evaluation of publication bias for 12 clinical trials of molnupiravir to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection in 13 694 patients with meta-analysis.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) acquired the global licensing rights for the antiviral molnupiravir, promising affordable access via licensing deals. Numerous Indian pharmaceutical companies subsequently conducted trials of the drug. Registered trials of molnupiravir were searched on the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) and efforts made to detect resulting public data. Per the CTRI, 12 randomized trials of molnupiravir were conducted in 13 694 Indian patients, from mid-2021. By August 2022, only a preprint and medical conference presentation had resulted. Additionally, two trials were mentioned in press releases suggesting failure of treatment. The available data contain unexplained results that differ significantly from both the PANORAMIC and MSD MOVe-OUT trials. Approximately one-third of the global data on molnupiravir remain unpublished. We conducted a meta-analysis with four studies that provided results and observed that molnupiravir does not have a significant benefit for hospitalizations.

The dangers of non-randomized, observational studies: experience from the COVID-19 epidemic.

In regulatory evaluations, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of medical interventions. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need for treatment options led to regulatory approvals being made based on evidence from non-randomized, observational studies. In this study we contrast results from observational studies and RCTs of six drugs to treat COVID-19 infection. Across a range of studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, ivermectin, aspirin, molnupiravir and tenofovir for COVID-19, there was statistically significant evidence of benefit from non-randomized observational studies, which was then not seen in RCTs. We propose that all observational studies need to be labelled as 'non-randomized' in the title. This should indicate that they are not as reliable for evaluating the efficacy of a drug and should not be used independently for regulatory approval decisions.

Supporting Weight Management During COVID (SWiM-C): A Randomized Trial of an ACT-Based Intervention

Background: We developed a web-based, acceptance-based, guided self-help intervention (Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19, "SWiM-C") which aimed to support adults with over-weight or obesity in their weight management and emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluates the effect of SWiM-C on weight and determinants of weight over twelve months. Methods: We randomized 388 participants (>18 years, BMI >25kg/m2) to the SWiM-C intervention (n=192) or a control group (n=196). SWiM-C is based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and is delivered remotely via an online web platform (12 weekly modules) and contact via telephone and email with a trained, non-specialist coach. The control group received a leaflet on weight management and wellbeing during the pandemic. Participants completed online questionnaires at baseline, 4 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in self-reported weight from baseline to 12 months;secondary outcomes were eating behavior, experiential avoidance, mental health, wellbeing and physical activity. Results: At 12 months, the adjusted difference in weight between SWiM-C and control group participants was -0.81kg (95% CI: -2.24 to 0.61kg). SWiM-C participants reported a greater reduction in experiential avoidance (-2.45, 95% CI: -4.75 to -0.15), uncontrolled eating (-3.36, 95% CI: -5.66 to -1.06), and emotional eating (-4.14, 95% CI: -7.25 to -1.02), and an increase in physical activity (8.96, 95% CI: 0.29 to 17.62) compared to the control group. No differences in mental health or wellbeing were observed at 12 months. Conclusions: Whilst the effect of the SWiM-C intervention on weight was inconclusive, SWiM-C improved eating behaviors, physical activity and psychological flexibility. These variables have been previously identified as determinants of successful weight management. Further refinement of the intervention is necessary to ensure meaningful effects on weight prior to implementation in practice. By being remotely delivered using non-specialists, SWiM-C enhances scalability and population reach while minimizing cost.

Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials.

Background: Ivermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed. Methods: We performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days. Results: Data for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%; RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15-1.45]; p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65-2.84]; p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.09]; p-value = 0.16). Conclusion: Our data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients; likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: www.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.

Safety and efficacy of four drug regimens versus standard-of-care for the treatment of symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19: A randomised, open-label, multi-arm, phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory study investigated four repurposed anti-infective drug regimens in outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: This phase 2, single centre, randomised, open-label, clinical trial was conducted in South Africa between 3rd September 2020 and 23rd August 2021. Symptomatic outpatients aged 18-65 years, with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were computer randomised (1:1:1:1:1) to standard-of-care (SOC) with paracetamol, or SOC plus artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ), pyronaridine-artesunate (PA), favipiravir plus nitazoxanide (FPV + NTZ), or sofosbuvir-daclatasvir (SOF-DCV). The primary endpoint was the incidence of viral clearance, i.e., the proportion of patients with a negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on day 7, compared to SOC using a log-binomial model in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. FINDINGS: The mITT population included 186 patients: mean age (SD) 34.9 (10.3) years, body weight 78.2 (17.1) kg. Day 7 SARS-CoV-2 clearance rates (n/N; risk ratio [95% CI]) were: SOC 34.2% (13/38), ASAQ 38.5% (15/39; 0.80 [0.44, 1.47]), PA 30.3% (10/33; 0.69 [0.37, 1.29]), FPV + NTZ 27.0% (10/37; 0.60 [0.31, 1.18]) and SOF-DCV 23.5% (8/34; 0.47 [0.22, 1.00]). Three lower respiratory tract infections occurred (PA 6.1% [2/33]; SOF-DCV 2.9% [1/34]); two required hospitalisation (PA, SOF-DCV). There were no deaths. Adverse events occurred in 55.3% (105/190) of patients, including one serious adverse event (pancytopenia; FPV + NTZ). INTERPRETATION: There was no statistical difference in viral clearance for any regimen compared to SOC. All treatments were well tolerated. FUNDING: Medicines for Malaria Venture, with funding from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, within the Covid-19 Therapeutics Accelerator in partnership with Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Mastercard.

Can we mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation using behavioural activation? Long-term results of the UK BASIL urgent public health COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial and living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions. METHODS: Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness. FINDINGS: The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was -0.70 (95% CI -2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was -0.39 (95% CI -1.43 to 0.65).The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.31, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.11) and loneliness (SMD=-0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; depression SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.07). DISCUSSION: We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression; achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review.

Barriers to Worldwide Access for Paxlovid, a New Treatment for COVID-19.

Pfizer and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) have reached a voluntary licensing agreement for Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir), a novel antiviral for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) taken orally in the first 5 days from symptom onset. The Pfizer-MPP deal enables 95 low- and middle-income countries (L/MICs) to access affordable biosimilars. Generics are delayed awaiting bioequivalence testing and may be ineffective in L/MICs with reduced testing capacity, which comprise only 10% of global diagnoses. Thirty-nine percent of diagnoses originate in MICs forced to pay high prices due to exclusion from the Pfizer-MPP deal. The cost-effectiveness of Paxlovid could be limited compared with the creation of sustainable vaccine infrastructure in these nations, delaying socioeconomic pandemic recovery. Furthermore, Paxlovid may not be cost-effective in vaccinated populations, and concerns remain over ritonavir drug interactions with COVID-19 comorbidity medications. We call for expanded coverage by the Paxlovid-MPP deal and greater access to testing.

Participants' experiences of mental health during a COVID-19 tailored ACT-based behavioural weight management intervention: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore participants' experiences of mental health during an acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based guided self-help intervention to support weight management in adults with overweight or obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic (SWiM-C: Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with twenty participants and used reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns of meaning across the dataset relevant to mental health. RESULTS: Four themes were conceptualized: i) Mental health changes associated with SWiM-C, ii) External factors negatively impacted mental health and intervention engagement, iii) Use and impact of coping responses, and iv) Intervention preferences based on psychological needs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that participants were exposed to multiple factors, both related to and external to the intervention, that negatively impact their mental health, yet ACT-based aspects of the SWiM-C intervention appeared to support participants to adaptively manage the decline in their mental health. The findings can be used to inform the development of future weight management interventions, such as through intervention personalization and the inclusion of more strategies that target emotional regulation.Trial registration: ISRCTN 12107048, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12107048.

Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials.

Background: Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method). Results: Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%-77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%-98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%-92%) for unapproved vaccines (P = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P = .12). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly.

Barriers to worldwide access for Paxlovid, a new treatment for COVID-19

Pfizer and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) have reached a voluntary licensing agreement for Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir), a novel antiviral for COVID-19 taken orally in the first 5 days from symptom onset. The Pfizer-MPP deal enables 95 low- and middle-income countries (L/MICs) to access affordable biosimilars. Generics are delayed awaiting bioequivalence testing, and may be ineffective in L/MICs with reduced testing capacity, which comprise only 10% of global diagnoses. 39% of diagnoses originate in MICs forced to pay high prices due to exclusion from the Pfizer-MPP deal. Cost-effectiveness of Paxlovid could be limited compared to the creation of sustainable vaccine infrastructure in these nations, delaying socioeconomic pandemic recovery. Furthermore, Paxlovid may not be cost-effective in vaccinated populations and concerns remain over ritonavir drug interactions with COVID-19 comorbidity medications. We call for expanded coverage by the Paxlovid-MPP deal, greater access to testing.

Randomized clinical trial of nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The COVER trial evaluated whether nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir could lower the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nitazoxanide was selected given its favourable pharmacokinetics and in vitro antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir had shown favourable results in early clinical trials. METHODS: In this clinical trial in Johannesburg, South Africa, healthcare workers and others at high risk of infection were randomized to 24 weeks of either nitazoxanide or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir as prevention, or standard prevention advice only. Participants were evaluated every 4 weeks for COVID-19 symptoms and had antibody and PCR testing. The primary endpoint was positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or serology ≥7 days after randomization, regardless of symptoms. A Poisson regression model was used to estimate the incidence rate ratios of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 between each experimental arm and control. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and January 2022, 828 participants were enrolled. COVID-19 infections were confirmed in 100 participants on nitazoxanide (2234 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1837-2718), 87 on sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (2125 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1722-2622) and 111 in the control arm (1849 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI 1535-2227). There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint between the treatment arms, and the results met the criteria for futility. In the safety analysis, the frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was low and similar across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, nitazoxanide and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir had no significant preventative effect on infection with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers and others at high risk of infection.

Supporting Weight Management during COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based, ACT-Based, Guided Self-Help Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with overweight and obesity are vulnerable to weight gain and mental health deterioration during the COVID-19 pandemic. We developed a web-based, guided self-help intervention based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) that aims to support adults with overweight and obesity to prevent weight gain by helping them to manage their eating behaviours, be more physically active, and protect their emotional wellbeing ("SWiM-C"). SWiM-C is a guided self-help programme using non-specialist guides to enhance scalability and population reach while minimizing cost. This study evaluated the effect of SWiM-C on bodyweight, eating behaviour, physical activity, and mental wellbeing in adults with overweight and obesity over 4 months during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: We randomized adults (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) to SWiM-C or to a wait-list standard advice group. Participants completed outcome assessments online at baseline and 4 months. The primary outcome was self-measured weight; secondary outcomes were eating behaviour, physical activity, experiential avoidance/psychological flexibility, depression, anxiety, stress, and wellbeing. We estimated differences between study groups in change in outcomes from baseline to 4 months using linear regression, adjusted for outcome at baseline and the randomization stratifiers (BMI, sex). The trial was pre-registered (ISRCTN12107048). RESULTS: 486 participants were assessed for eligibility; 388 participants were randomized (196 standard advice, 192 SWiM-C), and 324 were analysed. The adjusted difference in weight between SWiM-C and standard advice was -0.60 kg (-1.67 to 0.47, p = 0.27). SWiM-C led to improvements in uncontrolled eating (-3.61 [-5.94 to -1.28]), cognitive restraint (5.28 [2.81-7.75]), experiential avoidance (-3.39 [-5.55 to -1.23]), and wellbeing (0.13 [0.07-0.18]). CONCLUSIONS: SWiM-C improved several psychological determinants of successful weight management and had a protective effect on wellbeing during the pandemic. However, differences in weight and some other outcomes were compatible with no effect of the intervention, suggesting further refinement of the intervention is needed.

Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19;Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Background Ivermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed. Methods We performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days. Results Data for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%;RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04–1.66];p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15–1.45];p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65–2.84];p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60–1.09];p-value = 0.16). Conclusion Our data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients;likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration www.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.