Nursing work in units dedicated and not dedicated to COVID-19: consequences for occupational health

Objective: to analyze the implications of the pandemic on the Nursing teams occupational health according to its performance in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units. Method: a multicenter and mixed-methods study, with a sequential explanatory strategy. A total of 845 professionals took part in the first stage, answering an electronic form which contained sociodemographic and work-related variables, as well as about the pandemic and their health, in addition to the Self-Reporting Questionnaire. 19 professionals were interviewed in the second stage. The quantitative data were submitted to statistical analysis and the qualitative ones to thematic content analysis, with integration by connection. Results: the pandemic exerted impacts on the professionals health, both in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 areas. However, composition of the teams presented different characteristics between the areas, as well as the risk perceptions and the work demands. Conclusion: the professionals working in areas COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 areas are equally affected, although with different work exposure regarding the requirements at work in the COVID-19 units and the fear of contamination in non-COVID-19 units.

Supporting Relatives Prior to Caregiver Burden-Preventive E-Mental Health Short Intervention for Family Members of Individuals with Parkinsonism in an Early Phase of the Disease: Protocol for a Feasibility Study.

Research on support for relatives of patients with Parkinsonism has mainly focused on caregivers, while preventive offers for non-caregiving relatives are lacking. Thus, the aim of this multicenter pilot study is to develop and assess the feasibility of a preventive psychosocial support program for relatives of patients with Parkinsonism. It specifically focuses on family members of patients who are in an early phase of the disease, are not currently caregiving, and have not yet developed distress symptoms. It includes a telemedicine-based, 6-week preventive psychological short intervention (PPSI). The main objective of this feasibility mixed-methods study is to specify the demand for an early, low-threshold, and low-cost short intervention and to collect feedback based on qualitative and quantitative data of N = 20 relatives. Secondary objectives are an evaluation of the effects of the intervention and an analysis of the study design. Future directions are to further develop the PPSI using these data. This study can serve as a basis for future randomized controlled studies on this intervention, which might fill an important gap in clinical supply.

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing.

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (ß = -0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (ß = -0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (ß = -0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (ß = -0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.

Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients with Cancer Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials.

Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients, with questions remaining about their safety and efficacy in this population. Patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials receive novel treatments with unknown efficacy and safety profiles. Studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in these patients are urgently required. This is a retrospective, real-world, cohort study of patients receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines between 1 February and 25 June 2021 at the Division of New Drugs Development for Innovative Therapies of the European Institute of Oncology. One hundred thirteen patients were enrolled, 40 in early-phase clinical trials, and 20 under novel immunotherapy agents. Nearly three-quarters of the patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) after the first dose (1D) (74.3%) and second dose (2D) (72.6%). Most of the AEs were local (67.3% 1D and 61.9% after 2D), while 31.8% (1D) and 38.1% (2D) of the patients had systemic AEs. No AEs above grade 2 were observed. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, including patients receiving novel immunotherapy compounds. All cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of ongoing treatments or enrollment in early-phase trials.

Application of a Cloud Video Conference Method for Recruiting Healthy Subjects Into an Early-Phase Clinical Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: Our objective is to explore the effect of applying cloud video conferencing methods to the informed consent process in an early-phase clinical trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All participants who intended to participate in the trial were informed via a cloud video conference before signing the informed consent forms (ICF). Then, the attitudes of the participants with the cloud video conference and their understanding of the trial were evaluated using a questionnaire when they visited to sign the ICF onsite. Results: A total of 165 subjects participated in the cloud video conference process, and 142 visited the site to sign and date the ICFs at the center during the appointment time. The survey showed that nearly 100% of the subjects evaluated the video-based informed consent process as very good or good and gave correct answers to questions about the trial. Furthermore, 136 (95.8%) subjects believed that the knowledge about the trial derived via the video-based informed consent process was consistent with the onsite reality, and 139 (97.9%) subjects expressed their willingness to participate in an informed consent procedure undertaken through an online video conference. Conclusions: The video-based informed consent process achieved the same effects as an onsite informed consent process. The former saves time and cost of transportation for the subject and exhibits good public acceptance; especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this process is conducive for reducing the risk of subject infection due to travel and would also help avoid crowding on site.

Depression and Suicidal Ideation in a Sample of Malaysian Healthcare Workers: A Preliminary Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: The burden of suicidal behavior is anticipated to increase as a sequela of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is limited evidence on suicidal behavior among healthcare workers, an at-risk population. Our study aimed to investigate suicidal ideation in terms of the rate and associated factors in a sample of Malaysian healthcare workers during the early-phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A subpopulation analysis (N = 171) was conducted within a larger, nation-wide cross-sectional study of Malaysian healthcare worker psychological distress from March 18-21, 2020. Current suicidal ideation was measured with item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The following independent variables were assessed: socio-demographic profile, occupation and service-related factors, health-anxiety (Health Anxiety Inventory, HAI), lifetime anxiety disorder and severity of depression (PHQ-9). Results: The proportion of healthcare workers with current suicidal ideation (19/171) and clinical depression (17/171) were 11.1 and 9.9%, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that clinical depression was the most significant factor associated with current suicidal ideation (p < 0.001, OR = 55.983, 95% CI = 9.015-347.671) followed by mild (subthreshold) depression (p = 0.001, OR = 115.984, 95% CI = 2.977-85.804). Service duration of more than 10 years was associated with significantly less suicidal ideation (p = 0.049, OR = 0.072, 95% CI = 0.005-0.993). Conclusions: Depression (subthreshold and especially within the clinical range) and early-career status (<10 years in service) may be target areas of early intervention for reduction of suicidal ideation amongst healthcare workers who have served during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is warranted to elucidate specific occupational stressors related to COVID-19 work conditions to tailor appropriate suicide preventive strategies in this population.

Reconvalescent plasma/camostat mesylate in early SARS-CoV-2 Q-PCR positive high-risk individuals (RES-Q-HR): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Currently, there are no approved treatments for early disease stages of COVID-19 and few strategies to prevent disease progression after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) or camostat mesylate administered within 72 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult individuals with pre-existing risk factors at higher risk of getting seriously ill with COVID-19. Camostat mesylate acts as an inhibitor of the host cell serine protease TMPRSS2 and prevents the virus from entering the cell. CP represents another antiviral strategy in terms of passive immunization. The working hypothesis to be tested in the RES-Q-HR study is that the early use of CP or camostat mesylate reduces the likelihood of disease progression to (modified) WHO stages 4b-8 in SARS-CoV-2-positive adult patients at high risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 progression. TRIAL DESIGN: This study is a 4-arm (parallel group), multicenter, randomized (2:2:1:1 ratio), partly double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) or camostat mesylate with control or placebo in adult patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and high risk for progression to moderate/severe COVID-19. Superiority of the intervention arms will be tested. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is conducted at 10-15 tertiary care centers in Germany. Individuals aged 18 years or above with ability to provide written informed consent with SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by PCR within 3 days or less before enrolment and the presence of at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom (such as fever, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, headache, fatigue, smell/and or taste disorder, diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, exanthema) and symptom duration of not more than 3 days. Further inclusion criteria comprise: Presence of at least one of the following criteria indicating increased risk for severe COVID-19: Age > 75 years Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or pulmonary fibrosis BMI > 40 kg/m2 Age > 65 years with at least one other risk factor (BMI > 35 kg/m2, coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD) with GFR < 60 ml/min but ≥ 30 ml/min, diabetes mellitus, active tumor disease) BMI > 35 kg/m2 with at least one other risk factor (CAD, CKD with GFR < 60 ml/min but ≥ 30 ml/min, diabetes mellitus, active tumor disease) Exclusion criteria: 1. Age < 18 years 2. Unable to give informed consent 3. Pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers 4. Previous transfusion reaction or other contraindication to a plasma transfusion 5. Known hypersensitivity to camostat mesylate and/or severe pancreatitis 6. Volume stress due to CP administration would be intolerable 7. Known IgA deficiency 8. Life expectancy < 6 months 9. Duration SARS-CoV-2 typical symptoms > 3 days 10. SARS-CoV-2 PCR detection older than 3 days 11. SARS-CoV-2 associated clinical condition ≥ WHO stage 3 (patients hospitalized for other reasons than COVID-19 may be included if they fulfill all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria) 12. Previously or currently hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2 13. Previous antiviral therapy for SARS-CoV-2 14. ALT or AST > 5 x ULN at screening 15. Liver cirrhosis > Child A (patients with Child B/C cirrhosis are excluded from the trial) 16. Chronic kidney disease with GFR < 30 ml/min 17. Concurrent or planned anticancer treatment during trial period 18. Accommodation in an institution due to legal orders (§40(4) AMG). 19. Any psycho-social condition hampering compliance with the study protocol. 20. Evidence of current drug or alcohol abuse 21. Use of other investigational treatment within 5 half-lives of enrolment is prohibited 22. Previous use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 23. Concomitant proven influenza A infection 24. Patients with organ or bone marrow transplant in the three months prior to screening visit INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants will be randomized to the following 4 groups: 1) Convalescent plasma (CP), 2 units at screening/baseline visit (day 0) or day 1; CP is defined by the presence of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with titers ≥ 1:160; individuals with body weight ≥ 150 kg will receive a third unit of plasma on day 3 2) Camostat mesylate (200 mg per capsule, one capsule taken each in the morning, afternoon and evening on days 1-7) 3) Standard of care (SOC, control for CP) 4) Placebo (identical in appearance to camostat mesylate capsules, one capsule taken each morning, afternoon and evening on days 1-7; for camostat mesylate control group) Participants will be monitored after screening/baseline on day 3, day 5, day 8, and day 14. On day 28 and day 56, telephone visits and on day 90, another outpatient visit are scheduled. Adverse events and serious adverse events will be monitored and reported until the end of the study. An independent data safety monitoring committee will review trial progression and safety. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative number of individuals who progress to or beyond category 4b on the modified WHO COVID-19 ordinal scale (defined as hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia and additional oxygen demand via nasal cannula or mask) within 28 days after randomization. RANDOMIZATION: Participants will be randomized using the Alea-Tool ( aleaclinical.com ) in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to the treatment arms (1) CP, (2) camostat mesylate, (3) standard of care (SoC), and (4) placebo matching camostat mesylate. Randomization will be stratified by study center. BLINDING (MASKING): The camostat mesylate treatment arm and the respective placebo will be blinded for participants, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes. The treatment arms convalescent plasma and standard of care will not be blinded and thus are open-labeled, unblinded. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Overall, n = 994 participants will be randomized to the following groups: n = 331 to convalescent plasma (CP), n = 331 to camostat mesylate, n = 166 to standard of care (SoC), and n = 166 to placebo matching camostat mesylate. TRIAL STATUS: The RES-Q-HR protocol (V04F) was approved on the 18 December 2020 by the local ethics committee and by the regulatory institutions PEI/BfARM on the 2 December 2020. The trial was opened for recruitment on 26 December 2020; the first patient was enrolled on 7 January 2021 and randomized on 8 January 2021. Recruitment shall be completed by June 2021. The current protocol version RES-Q HR V05F is from 4 January 2021, which was approved on the 18 January 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2020-004695-18 . Registered on September 29, 2020. ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04681430 . Registered on December 23, 2020, prior to the start of the enrollment (which was opened on December 26, 2020). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (V05F) 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. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Early phase dose-finding trials in virology.

Little has been published in terms of dose-finding methodology in virology. Aside from a few papers focusing on HIV, the considerable progress in dose-finding methodology of the last 25 years has focused almost entirely on oncology. While adverse reactions to cytotoxic drugs may be life threatening, for anti-viral agents we anticipate something different: side effects that provoke the cessation of treatment. This would correspond to treatment failure. On the other hand, success would not be yes/no but would correspond to a range of responses, from small, no more than say 20% reduction in viral load to the complete elimination of the virus. Less than total success matters since this may allow the patient to achieve immune-mediated clearance. The motivation for this article is an upcoming dose-finding trial in chronic norovirus infection. We propose a novel methodology whose goal is twofold: first, to identify the dose that provides the most favorable distribution of treatment outcomes, and, second, to do this in a way that maximizes the treatment benefit for the patients included in the study.

A Focus on the Nowadays Potential Antiviral Strategies in Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): A Narrative Review.

Background: The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the related disease (COVID-19) has rapidly spread to a pandemic proportion, increasing the demands on health systems for the containment and management of COVID-19. Nowadays, one of the critical issues still to be pointed out regards COVID-19 treatment regimens and timing: which drug, in which phase, for how long? Methods: Our narrative review, developed using MEDLINE and EMBASE, summarizes the main evidences in favor or against the current proposed treatment regimens for COVID-19, with a particular focus on antiviral agents. Results: Although many agents have been proposed as possible treatment, to date, any of the potential drugs against SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be safe and effective for treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, remdesivir remains the only antiviral with encouraging effects in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: In such a complex moment of global health emergency, it is hard to demand scientific evidence. Nevertheless, randomized clinical trials aiming to identify effective and safe drugs against SARS-CoV-2 infection are urgently needed in order to confirm or reject the currently available evidence.

What Happened to People with Non-Communicable Diseases during COVID-19: Implications of H-EDRM Policies.

People with existing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are particularly vulnerable to health risks brought upon by emergencies and disasters, yet limited research has been conducted on disease management and the implications of Health-EDRM policies that address health vulnerabilities of people with NCDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper reports the baseline findings of an anonymous, random, population-based, 6-month cohort study that aimed to examine the experiences of people with NCDs and their relevant self-care patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 765 telephone interviews were completed from 22nd March to 1st April 2020 in Hong Kong, China. The dataset was representative of the population, with 18.4% of subjects reporting at least one NCD. Results showed that low household income and residence in government-subsidized housing were significant predictors for the subjects who experienced difficulty in managing during first 2 months of the pandemic (11% of the NCD patients). Of those on long-term NCD medication, 10% reported having less than one week's supply of medication. Targeted services for vulnerable groups during a pandemic should be explored to support NCD self-care.