"Something Good Has to Come Out of the Horror": A Qualitative Examination of Cancer Survivors' Attitudes Towards Participation in Research During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for people with cancer. Furthermore, it has been shown that accrual to cancer trials dropped substantially in 2020. Building on findings from a previous pilot survey, the present study used qualitative methods to gain insights into attitudes towards participation in research studies amongst people who have experienced cancer, in the context of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We interviewed 13 participants from the UK, who were purposively sampled, including a broad sample of cancer types, and a mixture of individuals who have and have not taken part in research previously. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews (median interview duration: 47 min) and were asked open-ended questions about their attitude towards and experiences with COVID-19, and their attitude towards research participation. In addition to this, prompts were used to ask participants about concerns that were highlighted by our previous quantitative work on this topic, such as concerns about being older or having to travel to participate. Interview transcripts were analysed using a framework analysis approach. Results: Our findings suggest that cancer patient decision-making about research participation during an infectious disease pandemic may be a function of a basic cost-benefit analysis, which considers the benefit of taking part, either personally to themselves or to wider society. The benefit may then be weighed by the patient against the risk of being infected, which may be influenced by trust in the relevant clinicians/researchers; familiarity with the study location; provision of detailed information on safety protocols for infectious disease; and, in particular, the availability of safe transport to and from the study location. Discussion: Some cancer patients say that they would be less likely to participate in a research study in the middle of an infectious disease pandemic due to an increased risk to themselves. Patients' perceived risk to themselves from participating may be ameliorated via the provision of certain practical solutions that can be considered at the study protocol design stage, such as safe travel, information, and the use of staff and study sites familiar to the patient.

Gender Differences in Concerns About Participating in Cancer Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is having major effects on cancer research, including major reductions in participant accrual to cancer clinical trials. Existing research has indicated that these steep drops in accrual rates to cancer clinical trials may be disproportionately affecting women. We sought to determine if there were gender differences in a dataset collected to examine participants' concerns about taking part in cancer research during the pandemic. METHODS: Between 5-19 June 2020, we distributed a fully anonymized survey via social media. We contacted 85 UK cancer patient organizations/charities and asked them to share our questionnaire on their platforms, of which 26 obliged. Patients aged 18 with a cancer diagnosis were eligible to participate and asked about their clinical and demographic characteristics, concerns about research participation given the COVID-19 pandemic, anxiety levels measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, amongst other questions. Anxiety levels and concerns about participating were compared between men and women using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 93 individuals, comprising n = 37 women and n = 56 men of various cancer types, provided survey responses. Independent t-tests showed that women reported higher anxiety scores, and concerns about participating in cancer research during COVID-19, than men. Linear regression analyses showed that anxiety scores predicted concerns about research participation in women but not men (pinteraction = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients have concerns about participating in research during the COVID-19 pandemic that range from mild to serious. Furthermore, the relationship between general anxiety and concerns about research participation may be both more relevant and more pronounced in women than in men. Future work should examine the reasons why women are less likely to enrol in cancer trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association Between Vitamin D and Novel SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Dysfunction - A Scoping Review of Current Evidence and Its Implication for COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased morbidity/mortality with COVID-19 respiratory dysfunction. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 24 of April 2020) and PubMed (2020 to 17 of September 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: A search using the search terms: [(cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol or vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 or vitamin D or 25OHD) and (SARS-CoV-2 or coronavirus or COVID or betacoronavirus or MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV or respiratory infection or acute respiratory distress syndrome or ARDS)]m.p. was conducted on the 24/04/2020 (Search A) and 17/09/2020 (Search B). RESULTS: 91 studies were identified as being concerned with Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI)/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and vitamin D, and 25 publications specifically explored the role of vitamin D deficiency in the development and progression of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 related ARDS. Search "A" identified three main themes of indirect evidence supporting such an association. Consistent epidemiological evidence exists linking low vitamin D levels to increased risk and severity of respiratory tract infections. We also report on plausible biological processes supporting such an association; and present weaker evidence supporting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the risk and severity of ARIs. Uncertainty remains about what constitutes an appropriate dosing regimen in relation to reducing risk/severity of ARI/ARDS. More recent evidence (Search B) provided new insights into some direct links between vitamin D and COVID-19; with a number of cohort and ecological studies supporting an association with PCR-positivity for SARS-CoV-2 and vitamin D deficiency. The exact efficacy of the vitamin D supplementation for prevention of, or as an adjunct treatment for COVID-19 remains to be determined; but a number of randomized control trials (RCTs) currently underway are actively investigating these potential benefits. CONCLUSION: Our rapid review of literature supports the need for observational studies with COVID-19 infected populations to measure and assess vitamin D levels in relation to risk/severity and outcomes; alongside RCTs designed to evaluate the efficacy of supplementation both in preventive and therapeutic contexts. The overlap in the vitamin D associated biological pathways with the dysregulation reported to drive COVID-19 outcomes warrants further investigation.