Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Ann Fam Med ; (21 Suppl 1)2023 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2262987

ABSTRACT

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Budesonide/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Bayes Theorem , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
2.
Vaccine ; 41(7): 1378-1389, 2023 02 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184289

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: From September 2021, Health Care Workers (HCWs) in Wales began receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination. This is the first dose beyond the primary vaccination schedule. Given the emergence of new variants, vaccine waning vaccine, and increasing vaccination hesitancy, there is a need to understand booster vaccine uptake and subsequent breakthrough in this high-risk population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, national-scale, observational cohort study of HCWs in Wales using anonymised, linked data from the SAIL Databank. We analysed uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccinations from September 2021 to February 2022, with comparisons against uptake of the initial primary vaccination schedule. We also analysed booster breakthrough, in the form of PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, comparing to the second primary dose. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations for vaccination uptake and breakthrough regarding staff roles, socio-demographics, household composition, and other factors. RESULTS: We derived a cohort of 73,030 HCWs living in Wales (78% female, 60% 18-49 years old). Uptake was quickest amongst HCWs aged 60 + years old (aHR 2.54, 95%CI 2.45-2.63), compared with those aged 18-29. Asian HCWs had quicker uptake (aHR 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whilst Black HCWs had slower uptake (aHR 0.67, 95%CI 0.61-0.74), compared to white HCWs. HCWs residing in the least deprived areas were slightly quicker to have received a booster dose (aHR 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16), compared with those in the most deprived areas. Strongest associations with breakthrough infections were found for those living with children (aHR 1.52, 95%CI 1.41-1.63), compared to two-adult only households. HCWs aged 60 + years old were less likely to get breakthrough infections, compared to those aged 18-29 (aHR 0.42, 95%CI 0.38-0.47). CONCLUSION: Vaccination uptake was consistently lower among black HCWs, as well as those from deprived areas. Whilst breakthrough infections were highest in households with children.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , Child , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Young Adult , Middle Aged , Male , Wales/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Breakthrough Infections , Health Personnel , Vaccination
3.
Glob Heart ; 16(1): 66, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2025129

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a continuous and robust impact on world health. The resulting COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating physical, mental and fiscal impact on the millions of people living with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). In addition to older age, people living with CVD, stroke, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension are at a particularly greater risk for severe forms of COVID-19 and its consequences. Meta-analysis indicates that hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and thrombotic complications have been observed as both the most prevalent and most dangerous co-morbidities in COVID-19 patients. And despite the nearly incalculable physical, mental, emotional, and economic toll of this pandemic, forthcoming public health figures continue to place cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death across the globe in the year 2020. The world simply cannot wait for the next pandemic to invest in NCDs. Social determinants of health cannot be addressed only through the healthcare system, but a more holistic multisectoral approach with at its basis the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is needed to truly address social and economic inequalities and build more resilient systems. Yet there is reason for hope: the 2019 UN Political Declaration on UHC provides a strong framework for building more resilient health systems, with explicit calls for investment in NCDs and references to fiscal policies that put such investment firmly within reach. By further cementing the importance of addressing circulatory health in a future Framework Convention on Emergency Preparedness, WHO Member States can take concrete steps towards a pandemic-free future. As the chief representatives of the global circulatory health community and patients, the Global Coalition for Circulatory Health calls for increased support for the healthcare workforce, global vaccine equity, embracing new models of care and digital health solutions, as well as fiscal policies on unhealthy commodities to support these investments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noncommunicable Diseases , Aged , Global Health , Humans , Noncommunicable Diseases/epidemiology , Noncommunicable Diseases/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Infect ; 84(5): 675-683, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788130

ABSTRACT

Background COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK are highly effective in general population cohorts, however, data on effectiveness amongst individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of severe disease are limited. Methods We used GP electronic health record data, sentinel virology swabbing and antibody testing within a cohort of 712 general practices across England to estimate vaccine antibody response and vaccine effectiveness against medically attended COVID-19 amongst individuals in clinical risk groups using cohort and test-negative case control designs. Findings There was no reduction in S-antibody positivity in most clinical risk groups, however reduced S-antibody positivity and response was significant in the immunosuppressed group. Reduced vaccine effectiveness against clinical disease was also noted in the immunosuppressed group; after a second dose, effectiveness was moderate (Pfizer: 59.6%, 95%CI 18.0-80.1%; AstraZeneca 60.0%, 95%CI -63.6-90.2%). Interpretation In most clinical risk groups, immune response to primary vaccination was maintained and high levels of vaccine effectiveness were seen. Reduced antibody response and vaccine effectiveness were seen after 1 dose of vaccine amongst a broad immunosuppressed group, and second dose vaccine effectiveness was moderate. These findings support maximising coverage in immunosuppressed individuals and the policy of prioritisation of this group for third doses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Humans , Immunity , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy
5.
Br J Psychiatry ; 221(1): 417-424, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731562

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.


Subject(s)
Anti-Anxiety Agents , Antipsychotic Agents , COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Anxiety Agents/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Vaccination
6.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 27(5): 263-273, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583131

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine if and to what degree asthma may predispose to worse COVID-19 outcomes in order to inform treatment and prevention decisions, including shielding and vaccine prioritisation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases were searched (October 2020) for clinical studies reporting at least one of the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality with COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children who tested positive for or were suspected to have COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures were the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, ICU admission or mortality with COVID-19. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) and presented these with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). RESULTS: 30 (n=112 420) studies were included (12 judged high quality, 15 medium, 3 low). Few provided indication of asthma severity. Point estimates indicated reduced risks in people with asthma for all outcomes, but in all cases the evidence was judged to be of very low certainty and 95% CIs all included no difference and the possibility of increased risk (death: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13, I2=58%; hospitalisation: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.26; ICU admission: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Findings on hospitalisation are also limited by substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Within people with asthma, allergic asthma was associated with less COVID-19 risk and concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with increased risk. In some studies, corticosteroids were associated with increased risk, but this may reflect increased risk in people with more severe asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Though absence of evidence of a clear association between asthma and worse outcomes from COVID-19 should not be interpreted as evidence of absence, the data reviewed indicate that risks from COVID-19 in people with asthma, as a whole, may be less than originally anticipated.


Subject(s)
Asthma , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Adult , Asthma/complications , Asthma/epidemiology , Asthma/therapy , Child , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Wellcome Open Res ; 6: 34, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575176

ABSTRACT

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, deploying online questionnaires in March and May 2020. Home-based antibody tests and a further questionnaire were sent to 5220 participants during a two-week period of October 2020.  4.2% (n=201) of participants reported a positive antibody test (3.2% G0s [n=81]; 5.6% G1s [n=120]). 43 reported an invalid test, 7 did not complete and 3 did not report their result. Participants uploaded a photo of their test to enable validation: all positive tests, those where the participant could not interpret the result and a 5% random sample were manually checked against photos. We report 92% agreement (kappa=0.853). Positive tests were compared to additional COVID-19 status information: 58 (1.2%) participants reported a previous positive test, 73 (1.5%) reported that COVID-19 was suspected by a doctor, but not tested and 980 (20.4%) believed they had COVID-19 due to their own suspicions.  Of those reporting a positive result on our antibody test, 55 reported that they did not think they had had COVID-19. Results from antibody testing and questionnaire data will be complemented by health record linkage and results of other biological testing- uniting Pillar testing data with home testing and self-report. Data have been released as an update to the original datasets released in July 2020. It comprises: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all three questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the antibody testing, associated questionnaire and the data obtained from it.

8.
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e053850, 2021 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394122

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Successful implementation of asymptomatic testing programmes using lateral flow tests (LFTs) depends on several factors, including feasibility, acceptability and how people act on test results. We aimed to examine experiences of university students and staff of regular asymptomatic self-testing using LFTs, and their subsequent behaviours. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study using semistructured remote interviews and qualitative survey responses, which were analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: People who were participating in weekly testing feasibility study, between October 2020 and January 2021, at the University of Oxford. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 and surveyed 214 participants. Participants were motivated to regularly self-test as they wanted to know whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most reported that a negative test result did not change their behaviour, but it did provide them with reassurance to engage with permitted activities. In contrast, some participants reported making decisions about visiting other people because they felt reassured by a negative test result. Participants valued the training but some still doubted their ability to carry out the test. Participants were concerned about safety of attending test sites with lots of people and reported home testing was most convenient. CONCLUSIONS: Clear messages highlighting the benefits of regular testing for family, friends and society in identifying asymptomatic cases are needed. This should be coupled with transparent communication about the accuracy of LFTs and how to act on either a positive or negative result. Concerns about safety, convenience of testing and ability to do tests need to be addressed to ensure successful scaling up of asymptomatic testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Self-Testing , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Students , Universities
9.
J Infect ; 83(2): 228-236, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230619

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To mitigate risk of mortality from coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), the UK government recommended 'shielding' of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database comparing people aged >= 40 years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n = 77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n = 24,752 shielded, n = 61,566 exact matches). RESULTS: We found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p < 0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p < 0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Shielding halved the risk of mortality for 21 days. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Humans , Primary Health Care , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
10.
BMJ Open ; 10(8): e038562, 2020 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781178

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Safety-netting in primary care is the best practice in cancer diagnosis, ensuring that patients are followed up until symptoms are explained or have resolved. Currently, clinicians use haphazard manual solutions. The ubiquitous use of electronic health records provides an opportunity to standardise safety-netting practices.A new electronic safety-netting toolkit has been introduced to provide systematic ways to track and follow up patients. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this toolkit, which is embedded in a major primary care clinical system in England:Egerton Medical Information System(EMIS)-Web. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster RCT in 60 general practices within the RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network. Groups of 10 practices will be randomised into the active phase at 2-monthly intervals over 12 months. All practices will be activated for at least 2 months. The primary outcome is the primary care interval measured as days between the first recorded symptom of cancer (within the year prior to diagnosis) and the subsequent referral to secondary care. Other outcomes include referrals rates and rates of direct access cancer investigation.Analysis of the clustered stepped-wedge design will model associations using a fixed effect for intervention condition of the cluster at each time step, a fixed effect for time and other covariates, and then include a random effect for practice and for patient to account for correlation between observations from the same centre and from the same participant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North West-Greater Manchester West National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference 19/NW/0692). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and sent to participating practices. They will be published on the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Care and RCGP RSC websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15913081; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Neoplasms , Electronics , England , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Primary Health Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , State Medicine
11.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 6(2): e18606, 2020 04 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-31012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) have successfully worked together on the surveillance of influenza and other infectious diseases for over 50 years, including three previous pandemics. With the emergence of the international outbreak of the coronavirus infection (COVID-19), a UK national approach to containment has been established to test people suspected of exposure to COVID-19. At the same time and separately, the RCGP RSC's surveillance has been extended to monitor the temporal and geographical distribution of COVID-19 infection in the community as well as assess the effectiveness of the containment strategy. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to surveil COVID-19 in both asymptomatic populations and ambulatory cases with respiratory infections, ascertain both the rate and pattern of COVID-19 spread, and assess the effectiveness of the containment policy. METHODS: The RCGP RSC, a network of over 500 general practices in England, extract pseudonymized data weekly. This extended surveillance comprises of five components: (1) Recording in medical records of anyone suspected to have or who has been exposed to COVID-19. Computerized medical records suppliers have within a week of request created new codes to support this. (2) Extension of current virological surveillance and testing people with influenza-like illness or lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI)-with the caveat that people suspected to have or who have been exposed to COVID-19 should be referred to the national containment pathway and not seen in primary care. (3) Serology sample collection across all age groups. This will be an extra blood sample taken from people who are attending their general practice for a scheduled blood test. The 100 general practices currently undertaking annual influenza virology surveillance will be involved in the extended virological and serological surveillance. (4) Collecting convalescent serum samples. (5) Data curation. We have the opportunity to escalate the data extraction to twice weekly if needed. Swabs and sera will be analyzed in PHE reference laboratories. RESULTS: General practice clinical system providers have introduced an emergency new set of clinical codes to support COVID-19 surveillance. Additionally, practices participating in current virology surveillance are now taking samples for COVID-19 surveillance from low-risk patients presenting with LRTIs. Within the first 2 weeks of setup of this surveillance, we have identified 3 cases: 1 through the new coding system, the other 2 through the extended virology sampling. CONCLUSIONS: We have rapidly converted the established national RCGP RSC influenza surveillance system into one that can test the effectiveness of the COVID-19 containment policy. The extended surveillance has already seen the use of new codes with 3 cases reported. Rapid sharing of this protocol should enable scientific critique and shared learning. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18606.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus , Disease Notification/methods , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel Surveillance
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL