Wellbeing while waiting evaluating social prescribing in CAMHS: study protocol for a hybrid type II implementation-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing is a mechanism of connecting patients with non-medical forms of support within the community and has been shown to improve mental health and wellbeing in adult populations. In the last few years, it has been used in child and youth settings with promising results. Currently, pathways are being developed for social prescribing in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to support children and young people on treatment waiting lists. The Wellbeing While Waiting study will evaluate whether social prescribing benefits the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. METHODS: This study utilises an observational, hybrid type II implementation-effectiveness design. Up to ten CAMHS who are developing social prescribing pathways as part of a programme run across England with support from the Social Prescribing Youth Network will participate. Outcomes for children and young people receiving social prescribing whilst on CAMHS waiting lists will be compared to a control group recruited prior to the pathway roll-out. Questionnaire data will be collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Primary outcomes for children and young people are mental health symptoms (including anxiety, depression, stress, emotional and behavioural difficulties). Secondary outcomes include: loneliness, resilience, happiness, whether life is worthwhile, life satisfaction, and service use. An implementation strand using questionnaires and interviews will explore the acceptability, feasibility, and suitability of the pathway, potential mechanisms of action and their moderating effects on the outcomes of interest, as well as the perceived impact of social prescribing. Questionnaire data will be analysed mainly using difference-in-differences or controlled interrupted time series analysis. Interview data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: The Wellbeing While Waiting study will provide the first rigorous evidence of the impact of social prescribing for children and young people on waiting lists for mental health treatment. Findings will help inform the prioritisation, commissioning, and running of social prescribing in other CAMHS. To maximise impact, findings will be available on the study website ( https://sbbresearch.org ) and disseminated via national and international networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness. RESULTS: After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial). CONCLUSION: Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.

Conducting rapid qualitative research amongst people with experience of rough sleeping in London during the COVID-19 pandemic

In March 2020, the ?Everyone In? initiative was introduced by the UK government as a public health response to COVID-19. This initiative sought to temporarily accommodate people experiencing rough sleeping in hotels in all local authority areas throughout England. In London, ?Everyone In? involved the procurement of vacant accommodation in over 100 hotels and temporarily re-housed approximately 2000 individuals. A rapid qualitative study was undertaken within two hotels to explore experiences of the initiative from the perspective of people accommodated in the hotels. This article describes how standard qualitative methods were adapted and implemented to complete the study whilst meeting COVID-19 social distancing guidelines. The research involved a longitudinal design of a two-stage qualitative interview that sought to capture residents? experience of ?Everyone In? at two points in time (while in the hotel and when residents had left the hotel). Adapted qualitative methods were employed by a team of 13 researchers. These adaptations included socially distanced leaflet dropping, telephone-based participant recruitment, a remote, multistage, longitudinal qualitative telephone interviewing and rapid framework analysis. 35 hotel residents were recruited into the study (two subsequently withdrew participation). A total of 299 (of a possible 330) short interviews were completed by 33 participants (26 male and 7 female) as part of the multi-stage, longitudinal design of the study. This study indicates that adapted qualitative research methods employed during a pandemic can be successfully applied to obtain insights and experiences (of individuals and groups) otherwise difficult to reach and/or complex to understand.

Manufacturing a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to meet global needs.

Manufacturing has been the key factor limiting rollout of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring rapid development and large-scale implementation of novel manufacturing technologies. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222, Vaxzevria) is an efficacious vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, based upon an adenovirus vector. We describe the development of a process for the production of this vaccine and others based upon the same platform, including novel features to facilitate very large-scale production. We discuss the process economics and the "distributed manufacturing" approach we have taken to provide the vaccine at globally-relevant scale and with international security of supply. Together, these approaches have enabled the largest viral vector manufacturing campaign to date, providing a substantial proportion of global COVID-19 vaccine supply at low cost.

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Of 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Multi-arm Trial of Inflammatory Signal Inhibitors (MATIS) for hospitalised patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of MATIS is to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) or fostamatinib (FOS) compared to standard of care (SOC) with respect to reducing the proportion of hospitalised patients progressing from mild or moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Secondary objectives, at 14 and 28 days, are to: Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce mortality Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for invasive ventilation or ECMO Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for non-invasive ventilation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the proportion of participants suffering significant oxygen desaturation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia [graded by a 9-point modified WHO Ordinal Scale* Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce systemic inflammation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to the incidence of renal impairment Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce duration of hospital stay Evaluate the safety of RUX and FOS for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: A multi-arm, multi-stage (3-arm parallel-group, 2-stage) randomised controlled trial that allocates participants 1:1:1 and tests for superiority in experimental arms versus standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients will be recruited while inpatients during hospitalisation for COVID-19 in multiple centres throughout the UK including Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. INCLUSION: Patients age ≥ 18 years at screening Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, defined as Grade 3 or 4 severity by the WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale Patients meeting criteria: Hospitalization AND SARS-CoV2 infection (clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed) AND Radiological change consistent with COVID-19 disease CRP ≥ 30mg/L at any time point Informed consent from patient or personal or professional representative Agreement to abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraception that is >99% effective for all participants of childbearing potential for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. For male participants, agreement to abstain from sperm donation for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. EXCLUSION: Requiring either invasive or non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow nasal oxygen at any point after hospital admission but before baseline, not related to a pre-existing condition (e.g., obstructive sleep apnoea) Grade ≥ 5 severity on the modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, i.e. SpO2 < 90% on ≥ 60% inspired oxygen by facemask at baseline; non-invasive ventilation; or invasive mechanical ventilation In the opinion of the investigator, progression to death is inevitable within the next 24 hours, irrespective of the provision of therapy Known severe allergic reactions to the investigational agents Child-Pugh B or C grade hepatic dysfunction Use of drugs within the preceding 14 days that are known to interact with any study treatment (FOS or RUX), as listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics Pregnant or breastfeeding Any medical condition or concomitant medication that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise subjects' safety or compliance with study procedures. Any medical condition which in the opinion of the principal investigator would compromise the scientific integrity of the study Non-English speakers will be able to join the study. If participants are unable to understand verbal or written information in English, then hospital translation services will be requested at the participating site for the participant where possible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: RUXOLITINIB (RUX) (14 days): An oral selective and potent inhibitor of Janus Associated Kinases (JAK1 and JAK2) and cell proliferation (Verstovek, 2010). It is approved for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or constitutional symptoms in myelofibrosis, polycythaemia vera and graft-versus-host-disease. RUX will be administered orally 10mg bd Day 1-7 and 5mg bd Day 8-14. FOSTAMATINIB (FOS) (14 days): An oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in adult participants with chronic immune thrombocytopenia. FOS will be administered orally 150mg bd Day 1-7 and 100mg bd Day 8-14. Please see protocol for recommended dose modifications where required. COMPARATOR (Standard of Care, SOC): experimental arms will be compared to participants receiving standard of care. It is accepted that SOC may change during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Co-enrolment to other trials and rescue therapy, either pre- or post-randomisation, is permitted and will be accounted for in the statistical analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: Pairwise comparison (RUX vs SOC and FOS vs SOC) of the proportion of participants diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia within 14 days. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia is defined by a score ≥ 5 on a modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, comprising the following indicators of disease severity: Death OR Requirement for invasive ventilation OR Requirement for non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow oxygen OR O2 saturation < 90% on ≥60% inspired oxygen RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to interventions using a central web-based randomisation service that generates random sequences using random permuted blocks (1:1:1), with stratification by age (<65 and ≥65 years) and site. BLINDING (MASKING): No participants or caregivers are blinded to group assignment. Clinical outcomes will be compared blind to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): For an early informal dose examination by the Data Monitoring Committee a minimum of 30 participants will be recruited. For Stage 1 of this multi-arm multi-stage study, 171 participants will be randomised, with 57 participants in each arm. If at least one experimental intervention shows promise, then Stage 2 will recruit a further 95 participants per arm. Sample size calculations are given in the protocol. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment is ongoing and started 2nd October 2020. We anticipate completion of Stage 1 by July 2021 and Stage 2 by April 2022. The current protocol version 2.0 of 11th February 2021 is appended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2020-001750-22 , 9th July 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04581954 , 9th October 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Covid-19 and aerosol transmission: up in the air

The study of Hamilton and colleagues, to which the article refers, reports two main findings.2 Firstly, administering two types of non-invasive respiratory support to healthy volunteers led to the release of either fewer or no more aerosol particles from the respiratory tract than when coughing, speaking, and breathing normally (for continuous positive airways pressure and high flow nasal oxygen, respectively). [...]among both healthy volunteers and inpatients with covid-19, numbers of emitted respiratory aerosols seemed higher when coughing than when breathing or speaking. Another recent study has also shown the relatively low aerosol generating potential of non-invasive respiratory support.3 And coughing is well documented to produce high numbers of respiratory droplets,4 hence the role of cough in transmitting other respiratory infections including tuberculosis, the archetypal airborne disease.5 The best evidence for airborne (or aerosol) transmission of covid-19 is from outbreaks6 and through the detection of virus in air samples.7 Airborne SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in intensive care units and other general hospital areas.7 What is meant by airborne or aerosol transmission can be confusing,8 but there are now good arguments for promoting measures to reduce inhalation of the smallest droplets by exposed individuals.