Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(8): e061027, 2022 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993022

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups. DESIGN: Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. SETTING: England and Wales, June to October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 100 participants from 19 diverse 'self-identified' ethnic groups. RESULTS: Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first 6-9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants' reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of ethnic minority groups (EMGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of National Health Service (NHS) staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants' suggested actions and the behaviour change wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19. CONCLUSION: To improve trust and compliance future reports or guidance should clearly explain any stated differences in health outcomes by ethnicity or other risk group, including specific messages for these groups and concrete actions to minimise any risks. Messaging should reflect the uncertainty in data or advice and how guidance may change going forward as new evidence becomes available. A contingency plan is needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 across all communities including EMGs, the vulnerable and socially disadvantaged individuals, in preparation for any rise in cases and for future pandemics. Equality across ethnicities for healthcare is essential, and the NHS and local communities will need to be supported to attain this.

2.
Br J Gen Pract ; 72(720): e446-e455, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327437

ABSTRACT

Objectives To explore attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccination, and influences and sources of information about COVID-19 across diverse ethnic groups (EGs) in the UK. Design Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) conducted June-October 2020 before UK COVID-19 vaccine approval. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Setting General public in the community across England and Wales. Participants 100 participants from 19 self-identified EGs with spoken English or Punjabi. Results Mistrust and doubt were common themes across all EGs including white British and minority EGs, but more pronounced amongst Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black ethnicities and Travellers. Many participants shared concerns about perceived lack of information about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy and potential unknown adverse effects. Across EGs participants stated occupations with public contact, older adults and vulnerable groups should be prioritised for vaccination. Perceived risk, social influences, occupation, age, co-morbidities and engagement with healthcare influenced participants’ intentions to accept vaccination once available;all Jewish FG participants intended to accept, while all Traveller FG participants indicated they probably would not. Facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake across all EGs included: desire to return to normality and protect health and wellbeing;perceived higher risk of infection;evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy;vaccine availability and accessibility. COVID-19 information sources were influenced by social factors, culture and religion and included: friends, family;media and news outlets;and research literature. Participants across most different EGs were concerned about misinformation or had negative attitudes towards the media. Conclusions During vaccination programme roll-out, including boosters, commissioners and vaccine providers should provide accurate information, authentic community outreach, and use appropriate channels to disseminate information and counter misinformation. Adopting a context-specific approach to vaccine resources, interventions and policies and empowering communities has potential to increase trust in the programme. Article summary: strengths and limitations This is amongst the largest qualitative studies on attitudes to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK general public across ethnic groups (EGs), ages and religions, adding insights from a broader range of participants. Qualitative methodology enabled discussion of participants’ responses around COVID-19 vaccination, probing to collect rich data to inform recommendations across EGs. Most data collection was undertaken in English, possibly excluding sectors of the population who may access COVID-19 information through different sources due to language. Data collection was June-October 2020 before COVID-19 vaccines were licensed. Attitudes are highly responsive to current information around a COVID-19 vaccine, as well as the state of the pandemic and perceived risk. Data were collected prior to much of the intervention work, putting the attitudes and intentions expressed in this study in a context of minimal community engagement and support. This provides a baseline snapshot of attitudes, providing the option to explore and assess the impact of such interventions. Socioeconomic data and index of multiple deprivation were not collected, limiting the ability to determine a possible accumulative effect of factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity and age.

4.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327367

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups. Design Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Setting England and Wales June-October 2020. Participants 100 participants from 19 diverse self-identified ethnic groups. Results Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first six to nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of minority ethnic groups (MEGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England (PHE) COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of NHS staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants suggested actions, and the Behaviour Change Wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19. Conclusion To maintain public trust, it is imperative that governmental bodies consider vulnerable groups, producing clear COVID-19 control guidance with contingency, fiscal, service provision and communication policies for the next rise in COVID-19 cases. This needs to be combined with public interventions including information, education, modelling and enablement of infection prevention through local community involvement and persuasion techniques or incentivisation. Government policy needs to review and include town and social planning leading to environmental restructuring that facilitates infection prevention control. This includes easy access to hand-washing facilities in homes, work, all food providers and shopping centres;toilet facilities as our Travellers mentioned, and adequate living accommodation and work environment facilitating IPC for all.

5.
Lancet ; 398(10303): 843-855, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1599473

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.


Subject(s)
Budesonide/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Administration, Inhalation , Aged , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
6.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(9): 1010-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Doxycycline/administration & dosage , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Doxycycline/adverse effects , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
7.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e046799, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276961

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86534580.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL