Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Trials ; 23(1), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2034045

ABSTRACT

Introduction At present, vaccines form the only mode of prophylaxis against COVID-19. The time needed to achieve mass global vaccination and the emergence of new variants warrants continued research into other COVID-19 prevention strategies. The severity of COVID-19 infection is thought to be associated with the initial viral load, and for infection to occur, viruses including SARS-CoV-2 must first penetrate the respiratory mucus and attach to the host cell surface receptors. Carrageenan, a sulphated polysaccharide extracted from red edible seaweed, has shown efficacy against a wide range of viruses in clinical trials through the prevention of viral entry into respiratory host cells. Carrageenan has also demonstrated in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Methods and analysis A single-centre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III trial was designed. Participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation to either the treatment arm, verum Coldamaris plus (1.2 mg iota-carrageenan (Carragelose®), 0.4 mg kappa-carrageenan, 0.5% sodium chloride and purified water), or placebo arm, Coldamaris sine (0.5% sodium chloride) spray applied daily to their nose and throat for 8 weeks, while completing a daily symptom tracker questionnaire for a total of 10 weeks. Primary outcome Acquisition of COVID-19 infection as confirmed by a positive PCR swab taken at symptom onset or seroconversion during the study. Secondary outcomes include symptom type, severity and duration, subsequent familial/household COVID-19 infection and infection with non-COVID-19 upper respiratory tract infections. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Discussion This is a single-centre, phase III, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess whether carrageenan nasal and throat spray reduces the risk of development and severity of COVID-19. If proven effective, the self-administered prophylactic spray would have wider utility for key workers and the general population. Trial registration NCT04590365;ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04590365. Registered on 19 October 2020. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06685-z.

3.
Br J Anaesth ; 127(2): 205-214, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275162

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily impacted elective and emergency surgery around the world. We aimed to confirm the incidence of perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and associated mortality after surgery. METHODS: Analysis of routine electronic health record data from NHS hospitals in England. We extracted data from Hospital Episode Statistics in England describing adult patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The exposure was SARS-CoV-2 infection defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. The primary outcome measure was 90 day in-hospital mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Index of Multiple Deprivation, presence of cancer, surgical procedure type and admission acuity. Results are presented as n (%) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We identified 2 666 978 patients undergoing surgery of whom 28 777 (1.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 26 364 (1.0%) patients died in hospital. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a much greater risk of death (SARS-CoV-2: 6153/28 777 [21.4%] vs no SARS-CoV-2: 20 211/2 638 201 [0.8%]; OR=5.7 [95% CI, 5.5-5.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing elective surgery, 2412/1 857 586 (0.1%) had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 172/2412 (7.1%) died, compared with 1414/1 857 586 (0.1%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=25.8 [95% CI, 21.7-30.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing emergency surgery, 22 918/582 292 (3.9%) patients had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 5752/22 918 (25.1%) died, compared with 18 060/559 374 (3.4%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=5.5 [95% CI, 5.3-5.7]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHS surgical pathways suggests current infection prevention and control policies are highly effective. However, the high mortality amongst patients with SARS-CoV-2 suggests these precautions cannot be safely relaxed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Elective Surgical Procedures/trends , Hospital Mortality/trends , Population Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , England/epidemiology , Epidemiologic Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Population Surveillance/methods
4.
Br J Surg ; 108(1): 97-103, 2021 Jan 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1104800

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 response required the cancellation of all but the most urgent surgical procedures. The number of cancelled surgical procedures owing to Covid-19, and the reintroduction of surgical acivirt, was modelled. METHODS: This was a modelling study using Hospital Episode Statistics data (2014-2019). Surgical procedures were grouped into four urgency classes. Expected numbers of surgical procedures performed between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 were modelled. Procedure deficit was estimated using conservative assumptions and the gradual reintroduction of elective surgery from the 1 June 2020. Costs were calculated using NHS reference costs and are reported as millions or billions of euros. Estimates are reported with 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 4 547 534 (95 per cent c.i. 3 318 195 to 6 250 771) patients with a pooled mean age of 53.5 years were expected to undergo surgery between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. By 31 May 2020, 749 247 (513 564 to 1 077 448) surgical procedures had been cancelled. Assuming that elective surgery is reintroduced gradually, 2 328 193 (1 483 834 - 3 450 043) patients will be awaiting surgery by 28 February 2021. The cost of delayed procedures is €5.3 (3.1 to 8.0) billion. Safe delivery of surgery during the pandemic will require substantial extra resources costing €526.8 (449.3 to 633.9) million. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, provision of elective surgery will be delayed and associated with increased healthcare costs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/economics , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Costs , Pandemics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , England/epidemiology , Facilities and Services Utilization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Models, Statistical , Personal Protective Equipment , Preoperative Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment/economics
5.
Br J Surg ; 107(10): 1262-1280, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-245238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Surgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this article is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and WHO COVID-19 databases. Newspaper and internet article sources were identified using Nexis. The search was complemented by bibliographic secondary linkage. The findings were analysed alongside guidelines from the WHO, Public Health England, the Royal College of Surgeons and specialty associations. RESULTS: Of a total 1329 articles identified, 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations made by the WHO regarding the use of PPE in the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved alongside emerging evidence. Medical resources including PPE have been rapidly overwhelmed. There has been a global effort to overcome this by combining the most effective use of existing PPE with innovative strategies to produce more. Practical advice on all aspects of PPE is detailed in this systematic review. CONCLUSION: Although there is a need to balance limited supplies with staff and patient safety, this should not leave surgeons treating patients with inadequate PPE.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Care Rationing , Infection Control/instrumentation , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Surgeons , COVID-19/epidemiology , Global Health , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL