Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on routine surveillance for adults with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in the UK. (preprint)

Background and aimsTo determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population with chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection under hospital follow-up in the UK, we quantified the coverage and frequency of measurements of biomarkers used for routine surveillance (ALT and HBV viral load). MethodsWe used anonymised electronic health record data from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Informatics Collaborative (HIC) pipeline representing five UK NHS Trusts. ResultsWe report significant reductions in surveillance of both biomarkers during the pandemic compared to pre-COVID years, both in terms of the proportion of patients who had [≥]1 measurement annually, and the mean number of measurements per patient. ConclusionsFurther investigation is required to determine whether these disruptions will be associated with increased rates of adverse chronic HBV outcomes.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (preprint)

ObjectivesColchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment, but its effect on time to recovery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether colchicine is effective at reducing time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community. DesignProspective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE). SettingNational trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom. ParticipantsAdults aged [≥]65, or [≥]18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell [≤]14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community. InterventionsParticipants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500{micro}g daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Main outcome measuresThe co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm). ResultsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine starting on March 04, 2021 and stopping on May 26, 2021, because the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.919 [95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.16] and an estimated increase of 1.14 days [-1.86 to 5.21] in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 [0.28 to 1.89] and an estimated difference of -0.4% [-2.7% to 2.4]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and one in usual care. ConclusionsColchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community. Trial registrationISRCTN86534580.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at higher risk of adverse outcomes in the community: interim analyses from the PRINCIPLE trial (preprint)

BACKGROUND Inhaled budesonide has shown efficacy for treating COVID-19 in the community but has not yet been tested in effectiveness trials. METHODS We performed a multicenter, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomized controlled trial involving people aged [≥]65 years, or [≥]50 years with comorbidities, and unwell [≤]14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE). Participants were randomized to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800g twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalization/death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomization to inhaled budesonide began on November 27, 2020 and was stopped on March 31, 2021 based on an interim analysis using data from March 4, 2021. Here, we report updated interim analysis data from March 25, 2021, at which point the trial had randomized 4663 participants with suspected COVID-19. Of these, 2617 (56.1%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and contributed data to this interim budesonide primary analysis; 751 budesonide, 1028 usual care and 643 to other interventions. Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group compared to usual care (hazard ratio 1.208 [95% BCI 1.076 - 1.356], probability of superiority 0.999, estimated benefit [95% BCI] of 3.011 [1.134 - 5.41] days). Among those in the interim budesonide primary analysis who had the opportunity to contribute data for 28 days follow up, there were 59/692 (8.5%) COVID-19 related hospitalizations/deaths in the budesonide group vs 100/968 (10.3%) in the usual care group (estimated percentage benefit, 2.1% [95% BCI -0.7% - 4.8%], probability of superiority 0.928). CONCLUSIONS In this updated interim analysis, inhaled budesonide reduced time to recovery by a median of 3 days in people with COVID-19 with risk factors for adverse outcomes. Once 28 day follow up is complete for all participants randomized to budesonide, final analyses of time to recovery and hospitalization/death will be published. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research/ United Kingdom Research Innovation [MC_PC_19079]; PRINCIPLE ISRCTN number, ISRCTN86534580.)

Evaluation of antibody testing for SARS-Cov-2 using ELISA and lateral flow immunoassays (preprint)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. MethodsWe tested plasma for COVID (SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). ResultsELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested [≥]10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. ConclusionsCurrently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.