Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(16)2022 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1997579

ABSTRACT

While effective for slowing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, public health measures, such as physical distancing and stay-at-home orders, have significantly shifted the way people interact and maintain social connections. To better understand how people sought social and psychological support amid the pandemic, we conducted a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of participants enrolled in a COVID-19 treatment trial (N = 30). All participants from the parent trial who consented to being contacted for future research studies were recruited electronically via email, and first-round virtual interviews were conducted between December 2020 and March 2021. Participants who participated in first-round interviews were contacted again, and follow-up interviews were conducted in January-February 2022. The results reported significant shifts in how participants connected to social support, including changes from physical to virtual modalities, and using different social networks for distinct purposes (i.e., Reddit/Facebook for information, WhatsApp for community connection). While having COVID-19, profound loneliness during isolation was described; yet, to mitigate effects, virtual support (i.e., emotional, knowledge-seeking) as well as in-person material support (e.g., groceries, snow-shoveling), were key. Public health efforts are needed to develop interventions that will improve the narratives about mental health challenges related to COVID-19 isolation, and to provide opportunities to share challenges in a supportive manner among social networks. Supporting social cohesion, despite the everchanging nature of COVID-19, will necessitate innovative multimodal strategies that learn from lived experiences across various stages of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Interaction
2.
JAMA ; 326(6): 490-498, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363618

ABSTRACT

Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment Failure
3.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis ; 15(7): e0009491, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331979

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends continuing azithromycin mass drug administration (MDA) for trachoma until endemic regions drop below 5% prevalence of active trachoma in children aged 1-9 years. Azithromycin targets the ocular strains of Chlamydia trachomatis that cause trachoma. Regions with low prevalence of active trachoma may have little if any ocular chlamydia, and, thus, may not benefit from azithromycin treatment. Understanding what happens to active trachoma and ocular chlamydia prevalence after stopping azithromycin MDA may improve future treatment decisions. We systematically reviewed published evidence for community prevalence of both active trachoma and ocular chlamydia after cessation of azithromycin distribution. We searched electronic databases for all peer-reviewed studies published before May 2020 that included at least 2 post-MDA surveillance surveys of ocular chlamydia and/or the active trachoma marker, trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) prevalence. We assessed trends in the prevalence of both indicators over time after stopping azithromycin MDA. Of 140 identified studies, 21 met inclusion criteria and were used for qualitative synthesis. Post-MDA, we found a gradual increase in ocular chlamydia infection prevalence over time, while TF prevalence generally gradually declined. Ocular chlamydia infection may be a better measurement tool compared to TF for detecting trachoma recrudescence in communities after stopping azithromycin MDA. These findings may guide future trachoma treatment and surveillance efforts.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , Trachoma/drug therapy , Child , Child, Preschool , Chlamydia trachomatis/drug effects , Chlamydia trachomatis/physiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Mass Drug Administration , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Trachoma/epidemiology , Trachoma/microbiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL