Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 70
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
J Immunol ; 208(3): 562-570, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1625582

ABSTRACT

Aging is associated with functional deficits in the naive T cell compartment, which compromise the generation of de novo immune responses against previously unencountered Ags. The mechanisms that underlie this phenomenon have nonetheless remained unclear. We found that naive CD8+ T cells in elderly humans were prone to apoptosis and proliferated suboptimally in response to stimulation via the TCR. These abnormalities were associated with dysregulated lipid metabolism under homeostatic conditions and enhanced levels of basal activation. Importantly, reversal of the bioenergetic anomalies with lipid-altering drugs, such as rosiglitazone, almost completely restored the Ag responsiveness of naive CD8+ T cells. Interventions that favor lipid catabolism may therefore find utility as adjunctive therapies in the elderly to promote vaccine-induced immunity against targetable cancers and emerging pathogens, such as seasonal influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).


Subject(s)
Aging/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , Immunocompetence/drug effects , Lipid Metabolism , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Apoptosis , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/metabolism , COVID-19/immunology , Cancer Vaccines/immunology , Cell Division , Female , Fenofibrate/pharmacology , Glucose/metabolism , HLA-A2 Antigen/immunology , Humans , Hypolipidemic Agents/pharmacology , Hypolipidemic Agents/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/immunology , Lipid Metabolism/drug effects , Lymphocyte Activation , MART-1 Antigen/chemistry , MART-1 Antigen/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/immunology , Peptide Fragments/immunology , Rosiglitazone/pharmacology , Single-Blind Method , Vaccination , Viral Vaccines/immunology , Young Adult
2.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261758, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1597654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to Tuberculosis (TB) medication is a serious threat to TB prevention and control programs, especially in resource-limited settings. The growth of the popularity of mobile phones provides opportunities to address non-adherence, by facilitating direct communication more frequently between healthcare providers and patients through SMS texts and voice phone calls. However, the existing evidence is inconsistent about the effect of SMS interventions on TB treatment adherence. Such interventions are also seldom developed based on appropriate theoretical foundations. Therefore, there is a reason to approach this problem more rigorously, by developing the intervention systematically with evidence-based theory and conducting the trial with strong measurement methods. METHODS: This study is a single-blind parallel-group design individual randomized control trial. A total of 186 participants (93 per group) will be individually randomized into one of the two groups with a 1:1 allocation ratio by a computer-generated algorithm. Group one (intervention) participants will receive daily SMS texts and weekly phone calls concerning their daily medication intake and medication refill clinic visit reminder and group two (control) participants will receive the same routine standard treatment care as the intervention group, but no SMS text and phone calls. All participants will be followed for two months of home-based self-administered medication during the continuation phases of the standard treatment period. Urine test for the presence of isoniazid (INH) drug metabolites in urine will be undertaken at the random point at the fourth and eighth weeks of intervention to measure medication adherence. Medication adherence will also be assessed by self-report measurements using the AIDS Clinical Trial Group adherence (ACTG) and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) questionnaires, and clinic appointment attendance registration. Multivariable regression model analysis will be employed to assess the effect of the Ma-MAS intervention at a significance level of P-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval. DISCUSSION: For this trial, a mobile-assisted medication adherence intervention will first be developed systematically based on the Medical Research Council framework using appropriate behavioural theory and evidence. The trial will then evaluate the effect of SMS texts and phone calls on TB medication adherence. Evidence generated from this trial will be highly valuable for policymakers, program managers, and healthcare providers working in Ethiopia and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the Pan-Africa Clinical Trials Registry with trial number PACTR202002831201865.


Subject(s)
Medication Adherence , Tuberculosis , Cell Phone , Humans , Single-Blind Method , Text Messaging
3.
Trials ; 22(1): 857, 2021 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538084

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Some pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal adverse events were observed in potential association with injection of COVID-19 vaccines, while there was no preventive intervention for it. We aim to investigate the efficacy of auricular acupressure (AA) therapy in preventing and relieving AEFI after injection of COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: The study design is a randomized, multicentre, three-arm controlled, single-blind trial. Participants meeting the inclusion criteria will be advertised and enrolled and assigned in the medical institutions randomly for post-injection observation. No less than 360 participants will be randomized into one of three groups: auricular acupressure group, sham auricular acupressure group, and wait-list group. Interventions will be performed immediately and will happen 4 to 5 times per day for 5 days. The primary clinical outcomes will be quality and quantity evaluation among participants who reported any AEFI and who reported local pain at injection site. Secondary outcomes will concern headache, muscle and (or) joint pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and other potential events. All the outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days after the injection. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be performed, with significance level determined as 5%. DISCUSSION: Results of this trial will help to clarify the value of auricular acupressure therapy in preventing and relieving overall and certain adverse events following immunization after injection of COVID-19 vaccine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: China Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) ( ChiCTR2100043210 ). Registered on 8 February, 2021.


Subject(s)
Acupressure , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Vaccination
4.
Clin Ter ; 172(6): 559-563, 2021 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1534516

ABSTRACT

Aim: To develop and test the effectiveness of an E-learning program for promoting physical activity (PA) and wellness among nurses. Background: Restrictions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic drastically changed many people's lives. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle is an everyday challenge faced by the general popula-tion. Nurses are one of the health care professionals who are typically well-educated in taking care of patients. There are studies that show that night shifts, extended shifts, and obesity have a correlation with the prevalence of acute low back pain among female nurses. PA is the key factor in the prevention and treatment of many chronic diseases, resulting in an improvement in the quality of life. The impact of social media and technology on our lives is undeniable in the modern era. Design: This study will be a single-centre, single-blind, randomi-zed controlled trial executed on an E-learning platform to provide the control and intervention groups with a distance learning program. Par-ticipants will be randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group. Participants in the control group will only sign up for module 1 of the PA modules, which only comprises information on PA and health promotion. On the other hand, the participants in the intervention group are expected to carry out 3 modules of exercises at home three days a week for a total duration of 8 weeks. The exercises will be performed at moderate intensity (5-6 on the Borg CR10 Scale). Ethical issues: This trial will comply with the declaration of Helsinki 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed written consent will be obtained from the participants. The Sapienza University of Rome, institutional ethics committee and review board approval will be requested for this study. Conclusion: Establishing an online PA program with good quality, such as a high level of convenience in access and use, simplified, easy to practice, and made available on social media, can minimize the difficulties faced previously in the implementation of an online PA program for nurses, and may enhance the health and wellbeing of many nurses in healthcare institutions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Computer-Assisted Instruction , Nurses , Exercise , Female , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method
5.
JAMA ; 326(18): 1807-1817, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527380

ABSTRACT

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Life Support Care , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Mycoses/etiology , Respiration, Artificial , Shock, Septic/etiology , Single-Blind Method
6.
JAMA ; 326(18): 1807-1817, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482066

ABSTRACT

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Life Support Care , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Mycoses/etiology , Respiration, Artificial , Shock, Septic/etiology , Single-Blind Method
7.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258559, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1468181

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Executive functions underlie self-regulation and are thus important for physical activity and adaptation to new situations. The aim was to investigate, if yearlong physical and cognitive training (PTCT) had greater effects on physical activity among older adults than physical training (PT) alone, and if executive functions predicted physical activity at baseline, after six (6m) and twelve months (12m) of the interventions, one-year post-intervention follow-up and an extended follow-up during COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: Data from a single-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (PASSWORD-study, ISRCTN52388040) were utilized. Participants were 70-85 years old community-dwelling men and women from Jyväskylä, Finland. PT (n = 159) included supervised resistance, walking and balance training, home-exercises and self-administered moderate activity. PTCT (n = 155) included PT and cognitive training targeting executive functions on a computer program. Physical activity was assessed with a one-item, seven-scale question. Executive functions were assessed with color-word Stroop, Trail Making Test (TMT) B-A and Letter Fluency. Changes in physical activity were modeled with multinomial logistic models and the impact of executive functions on physical activity with latent change score models. RESULTS: No significant group-by-time interaction was observed for physical activity (p>0.1). The subjects were likely to select an activity category higher than baseline throughout the study (pooled data: B = 0.720-1.614, p<0.001-0.046). Higher baseline Stroop predicted higher physical activity through all subsequent time-points (pooled data: B = 0.011-0.013, p = 0.015-0.030). Higher baseline TMT B-A predicted higher physical activity at 6m (pooled data: B = 0.007, p = 0.006) and during COVID-19 (B = 0.005, p = 0.030). In the PT group, higher baseline Letter Fluency predicted higher physical activity at 12m (B = -0.028, p = 0.030) and follow-up (B = -0.042, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive training did not have additive effects over physical training alone on physical activity, but multicomponent training and higher executive function at baseline may support adaptation to and maintenance of a physically active lifestyle among older adults.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Executive Function , Exercise , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/virology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Single-Blind Method , Trail Making Test , Treatment Outcome
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(40): e27444, 2021 Oct 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462563

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 may cause low oxygen saturation (SpO2) and respiratory failure in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Hence, increased SpO2 levels in COVID-19 patients could be crucial for their quality of life and recovery. This study aimed to demonstrate that a 30-minute single session of dorsal low-field thoracic magnetic stimulation (LF-ThMS) can be employed to increase SpO2 levels in COVID-19 patients significantly. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the variables associated with LF-ThMS, such as frequency, magnetic flux density, and temperature in the dorsal thorax, might be correlated to SpO2 levels in these patients.Here we employed an LF-ThMS device to noninvasively deliver a pulsed magnetic field from 100 to 118 Hz and 10.5 to 13.1 milliTesla (i.e., 105 to 131 Gauss) to the dorsal thorax. These values are within the intensity range of several pulsed electromagnetic field devices employed in physical therapy worldwide. We designed a single-blind, sham-controlled, crossover study on 5 COVID-19 patients who underwent 2 sessions of the study (real and sham LF-ThMS) and 12 patients who underwent only the real LF-ThMS.We found a statistically significant positive correlation between magnetic flux density, frequency, or temperature, associated with the real LF-ThMS and SpO2 levels in all COVID-19 patients. However, the 5 patients in the sham-controlled study did not exhibit a significant change in their SpO2 levels during sham stimulation. The employed frequencies and magnetic flux densities were safe for the patients. We did not observe adverse events after the LF-ThMS intervention.This study is a proof-of-concept that a single session of LF-ThMS applied for 30 minutes to the dorsal thorax of 17 COVID-19 patients significantly increased their SpO2 levels. However, future research will be needed to understand the physiological mechanisms behind this finding.The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04895267, registered on May 20, 2021) retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04895267.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Magnetic Field Therapy/methods , Oxygen/blood , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Thorax
10.
Nutrients ; 13(10)2021 Sep 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1444285

ABSTRACT

Scalable, effective interventions are needed to address poor diet, insufficient physical activity, and obesity amongst rising numbers of cancer survivors. Interventions targeting survivors and their friends and family may promote both tertiary and primary prevention. The design, rationale, and enrollment of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NCT04132219) to test a web-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors and their supportive partners are described, along with the characteristics of the sample recruited. This two-arm, single-blinded RCT randomly assigns 56 dyads (cancer survivor and partner, both with obesity, poor diets, and physical inactivity) to the six-month DUET intervention vs. wait-list control. Intervention delivery and assessment are remotely performed with 0-6 month, between-arm tests comparing body weight status (primary outcome), and secondary outcomes (waist circumference, health indices, and biomarkers of glucose homeostasis, lipid regulation and inflammation). Despite COVID-19, targeted accrual was achieved within 9 months. Not having Internet access was a rare exclusion (<2%). Inability to identify a support partner precluded enrollment of 42% of interested/eligible survivors. The enrolled sample is diverse: ages 23-81 and 38% racial/ethnic minorities. Results support the accessibility and appeal of web-based lifestyle interventions for cancer survivors, though some cancer survivors struggled to enlist support partners and may require alternative strategies.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Internet-Based Intervention , Spouses , Weight Reduction Programs/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Diet, Reducing/methods , Exercise , Female , Humans , Life Style , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
11.
Trials ; 22(1): 39, 2021 Jan 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440947

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different "active" SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department's current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy's applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. TRIAL DESIGN: This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany's Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. MAIN OUTCOMES: The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. RANDOMISATION: Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. BLINDING (MASKING): The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. SAMPLE SIZES: Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants' perspective on testing processes and implementation. TRIAL STATUS: Final protocol version is "Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2" from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial . HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , Health Care Costs , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/economics , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/economics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Surveys and Questionnaires/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Population Surveillance , Predictive Value of Tests , Prevalence , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Reproducibility of Results , Single-Blind Method
12.
N Engl J Med ; 385(19): 1774-1785, 2021 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434206

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). After emergency use of the vaccine was authorized, the protocol was amended to include an open-label phase. Final analyses of efficacy and safety data from the blinded phase of the trial are reported. METHODS: We enrolled volunteers who were at high risk for Covid-19 or its complications; participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo, 28 days apart, at 99 centers across the United States. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,415 participants; 15,209 were assigned to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 15,206 to receive placebo. More than 96% of participants received both injections, 2.3% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and the median follow-up was 5.3 months in the blinded phase. Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine continued to be efficacious in preventing Covid-19 illness and severe disease at more than 5 months, with an acceptable safety profile, and protection against asymptomatic infection was observed. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Incidence , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
13.
Trials ; 22(1): 639, 2021 Sep 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430471

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heparin is used worldwide for 70 years during all non-cardiac arterial procedures (NCAP) to reduce thrombo-embolic complications (TEC). But heparin also increases blood loss causing possible harm for the patient. Heparin has an unpredictable effect in the individual patient. The activated clotting time (ACT) can measure the effect of heparin. Currently, this ACT is not measured during NCAP as the standard of care, contrary to during cardiac interventions, open and endovascular. A RCT will evaluate if ACT-guided heparinization results in less TEC than the current standard: a single bolus of 5000 IU of heparin and no measurements at all. A goal ACT of 200-220 s should be reached during ACT-guided heparinization and this should decrease (mortality caused by) TEC, while not increasing major bleeding complications. This RCT will be executed during open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery, as this is a standardized procedure throughout Europe. METHODS: Seven hundred fifty patients, who will undergo open AAA repair of an aneurysm originating below the superior mesenteric artery, will be randomised in 2 treatment arms: 5000 IU of heparin and no ACT measurements and no additional doses of heparin, or a protocol of 100 IU/kg bolus of heparin and ACT measurements after 5 min, and then every 30 min. The goal ACT is 200-220 s. If the ACT after 5 min is < 180 s, 60 IU/kg will be administered; if the ACT is between 180 and 200 s, 30 IU/kg. If the ACT is > 220 s, no extra heparin is given, and the ACT is measured after 30 min and then the same protocol is applied. The expected incidence for the combined endpoint of TEC and mortality is 19% for the 5000 IU group and 11% for the ACT-guided group. DISCUSSION: The ACTION-1 trial is an international RCT during open AAA surgery, designed to show superiority of ACT-guided heparinization compared to the current standard of a single bolus of 5000 IU of heparin. A significant reduction in TEC and mortality, without more major bleeding complications, must be proven with a relevant economic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A}: NTR NL8421 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04061798 . Registered on 20 August 2019 EudraCT 2018-003393-27 TRIAL REGISTRATION: DATA SET {2B}: Data category Information Primary registry and trial identifying number ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04061798 Date of registration in primary registry 20-08-2019 Secondary identifying numbers NTR: NL8421 EudraCT: 2018-003393-27 Source(s) of monetary or material support ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development Dijklander Ziekenhuis Amsterdam UMC Primary sponsor Dijklander Ziekenhuis Secondary sponsor(s) N/A Contact for public queries A.M. Wiersema, MD, PhD Arno@wiersema.nu 0031-229 208 206 Contact for scientific queries A.M. Wiersema, MD, PhD Arno@wiersema.nu 0031-229 208 206 Public title ACT Guided Heparinization During Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (ACTION-1) Scientific title ACTION-1: ACT Guided Heparinization During Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair, a Randomised Trial Countries of recruitment The Netherlands. Soon the recruitment will start in Germany Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied Abdominal aortic aneurysm, arterial disease, surgery Intervention(s) ACT-guided heparinization 5000 IU of heparin Key inclusion and exclusion criteria Ages eligible for the study: ≥18 years Sexes eligible for the study: both Accepts healthy volunteers: no Inclusion criteria: Study type Interventional Allocation: randomized Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: single blind (patient) Primary purpose: treatment Phase IV Date of first enrolment March 2020 Target sample size 750 Recruitment status Recruiting Primary outcome(s) The primary efficacy endpoint is 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality during the same admission. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence of bleeding complications according to E-CABG classification, grade 1 and higher. Key secondary outcomes Serious complications as depicted in the Suggested Standards for Reports on Aneurysmal disease: all complications requiring re-operation, longer hospital stay, all complications.


Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/surgery , Heparin/adverse effects , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
14.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 30(1): 17-26, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430192

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: User-testing and subsequent modification of clinical guidelines increases health professionals' information retrieval and comprehension. No study has investigated whether this results in safer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of medication errors when administering an intravenous medicine using the current National Health Service Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG) versus an IMG version revised with user-testing. METHOD: Single-blind, randomised parallel group in situ simulation. Participants were on-duty nurses/midwives who regularly prepared intravenous medicines. Using a training manikin in their clinical area, participants administered a voriconazole infusion, a high-risk medicine requiring several steps to prepare. They were randomised to use current IMG guidelines or IMG guidelines revised with user-testing. Direct observation was used to time the simulation and identify errors. Participant confidence was measured using a validated instrument. The primary outcome was the percentage of simulations with at least one moderate-severe IMG-related error, with error severity classified by an expert panel. RESULTS: In total, 133 participants were randomised to current guidelines and 140 to user-tested guidelines. Fewer moderate-severe IMG-related errors occurred with the user-tested guidelines (n=68, 49%) compared with current guidelines (n=79, 59%), but this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio: 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02). Significantly more simulations were completed without any IMG-related errors with the user-tested guidelines (n=67, 48%) compared with current guidelines (n=26, 20%) (risk ratio: 2.46; 95% CI 1.68 to 3.60). Median simulation completion time was 1.6 min (95% CI 0.2 to 3.0) less with the user-tested guidelines. Participants who used user-tested guidelines reported greater confidence. CONCLUSION: User-testing injectable medicines guidelines reduces the number of errors and the time taken to prepare and administer intravenous medicines, while increasing staff confidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5275.


Subject(s)
State Medicine , Adult , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method
15.
N Engl J Med ; 385(19): 1761-1773, 2021 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410390

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Child , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
16.
Lancet ; 398(10303): 856-869, 2021 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397746

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
17.
N Engl J Med ; 385(21): 1951-1960, 2021 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, -6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Disease Progression , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Failure , Young Adult
18.
N Engl J Med ; 385(13): 1172-1183, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1287849

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early clinical data from studies of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax), a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that contains the full-length spike glycoprotein of the prototype strain plus Matrix-M adjuvant, showed that the vaccine was safe and associated with a robust immune response in healthy adult participants. Additional data were needed regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of this vaccine in a larger population. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 33 sites in the United Kingdom, we assigned adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular 5-µg doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo administered 21 days apart. The primary efficacy end point was virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection with an onset at least 7 days after the second injection in participants who were serologically negative at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 15,187 participants underwent randomization, and 14,039 were included in the per-protocol efficacy population. Of the participants, 27.9% were 65 years of age or older, and 44.6% had coexisting illnesses. Infections were reported in 10 participants in the vaccine group and in 96 in the placebo group, with a symptom onset of at least 7 days after the second injection, for a vaccine efficacy of 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2 to 94.6). No hospitalizations or deaths were reported among the 10 cases in the vaccine group. Five cases of severe infection were reported, all of which were in the placebo group. A post hoc analysis showed an efficacy of 86.3% (95% CI, 71.3 to 93.5) against the B.1.1.7 (or alpha) variant and 96.4% (95% CI, 73.8 to 99.5) against non-B.1.1.7 variants. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine administered to adult participants conferred 89.7% protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant. (Funded by Novavax; EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular/adverse effects , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Young Adult
19.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 25(11): 4156-4162, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281021

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 30% of patients with confirmed COVID-19 report persistent smell or taste disorders as long-term sequalae of infection. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with inflammatory changes to the olfactory bulb, and treatments with anti-inflammatory properties are hypothesized to attenuate viral injury and promote recovery of olfaction after infection. Our study investigated the efficacy of a supplement with Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and Luteolin to support recovery of olfaction in COVID-19 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized-controlled pilot study in outpatients with history of confirmed COVID-19 with post-infection olfactory impairment that persisted ≥ 90 days after SARS-CoV-2 negative testing. Patients were randomized to two times a day olfactory rehabilitation alone or weekly olfactory rehabilitation plus daily oral supplement with PEA and Luteolin. Subjects with preexisting olfactory disorders were excluded. Sniffin' Sticks assessments were performed at baseline and 30 days after treatment.  Data on gender, age, and time since infection were collected. Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test was used to compare variances of Sniff scores between groups over time, and Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to assess for correlations between Sniff Score and gender or duration of infection. RESULTS: Among 12 patients enrolled (n=7, supplement; n=5, controls), patients receiving supplement had greater improvement in olfactory threshold, discrimination, and identification score versus controls (p=0.01). Time since infection was negatively correlated with Sniff Score, and there was no correlation between gender. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment combining olfactory rehabilitation with oral supplementation with PEA and Luteolin was associated with improved recovery of olfactory function, most marked in those patients with longstanding olfactory dysfunction. Further studies are necessary to replicate these findings and to determine whether early intervention including olfactory rehabilitation and PEA+Luteolin oral supplement might prevent SARS-CoV-2 associated olfactory impairment.


Subject(s)
Amides/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Ethanolamines/administration & dosage , Luteolin/administration & dosage , Olfaction Disorders/drug therapy , Palmitic Acids/administration & dosage , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Olfaction Disorders/diagnosis , Olfaction Disorders/etiology , Pilot Projects , Single-Blind Method , Smell/drug effects , Smell/physiology
20.
Trials ; 22(1): 314, 2021 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1277968

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of specialist palliative care intervention in patients undergoing surgery for cancer has not been studied extensively. The SCOPE randomized controlled trial will investigate the effect of specialist palliative care intervention in cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study protocol of the SCOPE Trial was published in December 2019. METHODS AND DESIGN: The SCOPE Trial is a single-center, single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will investigate specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study plans to enroll 236 patients that will be randomized to specialist palliative care (intervention arm) and usual care (control arm) in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the study is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI) at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of the study include the total FACT-G score at 90 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit within 90 days of operation, and all-cause mortality at 1 year after operation. Time frames for all outcomes will start on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the SCOPE randomized controlled trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03436290 . Registered on 16 February 2018.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , Palliative Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...