Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study.

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case management. COPCOV aims to recruit healthcare workers and other staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express if they would be interested in participating in such a study and which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study at the respective sites, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand concerns potential participants might have, to fine tune research procedures and to refine COPCOV information materials. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. The sessions were designed to encourage potential participants and research professionals not directly involved in the project to interact with those who planned the study and those conducting it. Many attendees were keen to join the study while others had concerns. Questions raised revolved around the social value and study rationale; safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance; study design and commitments. Conclusions: These sessions helped us refine information materials, identify misunderstandings about the study as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study [version 3;peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in COVID-19 case management. Participants are staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. As part of the study, we conducted a series of engagement sessions. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand possible concerns, to fine tune research procedures and to refine the COPCOV information materials. Methods: The COPCOV study was approved by relevant institutional review boards. The sessions described in this paper were part of the study. We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express their willingness to participate in such a study, which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication, and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results and conclusions: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. Issues raised revolved around the social value and study rationale;safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance;study design and commitments. These sessions helped us identify concerns people had, which helped us refine information materials as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

Good participatory practice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research: the case of a COVID-19 prevention study

Background: The COPCOV study (chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevention of coronavirus disease), which started recruitment in April 2020, is a multi-country double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial which is being conducted in healthcare facilities involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case management. COPCOV aims to recruit healthcare workers and other staff employed in facilities managing people with proven or suspected COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a series of engagement sessions, each involving a short presentation of the study, a section where attendees were asked to express if they would be interested in participating in such a study and which information they would need to change their view and an open Q&A section. Answers were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent investigators. Themes were derived from the data. The aims were to assess the feasibility of the study at the respective sites, to identify context-specific ethical issues, to understand concerns potential participants might have, to fine tune research procedures and to refine COPCOV information materials. They complemented other site-specific engagement, communication and public relation activities such as press releases and websites. Results: From 16 th March 2020 to 20 th January 2021, 12 engagement sessions were conducted in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal and the UK involving 213 attendees in total. The sessions were designed to encourage potential participants and research professionals not directly involved in the project to interact with those who planned the study and those conducting it. Many attendees were keen to join the study while others had concerns. Questions raised revolved around the social value and study rationale;safety of trial medications and risk-benefit balance;study design and commitments. Conclusions: These sessions helped us refine information materials, identify misunderstandings about the study as well as complement site feasibility assessments. Our experience strongly supports the use of participatory practices prior to conducting clinical trials.

Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions. INTERPRETATION: The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) Trials: Design, Baseline Characteristics, and Challenges.

Background: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed, but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging. Methods: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3500 outpatients and 2500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and aspirin vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization, it is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization, it is major thrombotic events, need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: At the completion of enrollment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3917 patients, and the inpatient trial had enrolled 2611 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals, and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine, and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban, across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.

Contexte: Il est urgent de mettre au point des traitements efficaces contre la COVID-19, mais il n'est pas facile de réaliser des essais à répartition aléatoire dans un contexte pandémique. Méthodologie: Les essais internationaux factoriels ACT (Anti-Coronavirus Therapy) avaient un objectif d'inscription de 3 500 patients externes et de 2 500 patients hospitalisés présentant une COVID-19 symptomatique. L'essai mené auprès de patients externes visait à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et l'aspirine par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la thrombose majeure, l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'aspirine. L'essai mené auprès de patients hospitalisés visant à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et un traitement associant le rivaroxaban à 2,5 mg deux fois par jour et l'aspirine à 100 mg une fois par jour par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la survenue de manifestations thrombotiques majeures, le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'association rivaroxaban-aspirine. Résultats: À la fin de la période d'inscription, le 10 février 2022, 3 917 patients externes et 2 611 patients hospitalisés formaient la population des essais. Certains aspects se sont révélés problématiques, notamment le manque de données préliminaires sur les interventions à évaluer, les incertitudes liées aux taux d'événements prévus, les retards touchant les approbations réglementaires et éthiques et les interventions de recherche, de même que l'évolution de la pandémie de COVID-19. Conclusions: Les essais ACT détermineront l'efficacité du traitement anti-inflammatoire par la colchicine et du traitement antithrombotique par l'aspirine, administrée seule ou en association avec le rivaroxaban, contre la COVID-19 légère, modérée ou sévère. Les leçons tirées de ces essais orienteront la planification d'essais ultérieurs.

Perception of Health Care Practitioners of Government Designated COVID-19 Hospitals of Nepal towards the Management of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst the chaos of COVID-19, health care practitioners are persistently providing services and experiencing many challenges. This study aimed to determine the perception of health care practitioners of government designated COVID-19 hospitals of Nepal towards the management of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among the frontline health care practitioners working in the government designated COVID-19 hospitals in Nepal from 21st June, 2020 to 15th August, 2020. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of the Nepal Health Research Council (Reference number: 347/2020 P). A total of 252 health care practitioners (doctors, nurses, and paramedics) working at the forefront in the emergency ward, general wards, intensive care units, isolation centers, fever clinics, laboratory, quarantine centers, help desks, etc. in the designated hospitals who consented to participate were included in the study. Convenience sampling was used. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 16.0. Point estimate at 95% confidence interval was calculated along with frequency and proportion for binary data. RESULTS: Only 41 (16.3%) (11.73-20.86 at 95% Confidence Interval) of the health care practitioners were found to have satisfactory perception towards the management of COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. CONCLUSIONS: The satisfactory perception of the health care practitioners in our study towards the management of COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal is lower as compared to the other studies in Nepal and abroad.