ABSTRACT
BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes. Novel or repurposed antiviral drugs may reduce infection and disease severity through reducing viral replication and inflammation. ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of antiviral agents (ciclesonide, niclosamide) for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in care home residents. DesignCluster-randomised open-label blinded endpoint platform clinical trial testing antiviral agents in a post-exposure prophylaxis paradigm. SettingCare homes across all four United Kingdom member countries. ParticipantsCare home residents 65 years of age or older. InterventionsCare homes were to be allocated at random by computer to 42 days of antiviral agent plus standard care versus standard of care and followed for 60 days after randomisation. Main outcome measuresThe primary four-level ordered categorical outcome with participants classified according to the most serious of all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, SARS-CoV-2 infection and no infection. Analysis using ordinal logistic regression was by intention to treat. Other outcomes included the components of the primary outcome and transmission. ResultsDelays in contracting between NIHR and the manufacturers of potential antiviral agents significantly delayed any potential start date. Having set up the trial (protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, routine data algorithms, training materials), the trial was stopped in September 2021 prior to contracting of care homes and general practitioners in view of the success of vaccination in care homes with significantly reduced infections, hospitalisations and deaths. As a result, the sample size target (based on COVID-19 rates and deaths occurring in February-June 2020) became unfeasible. LimitationsCare home residents were not approached about the trial and so were not consented and did not receive treatment. Hence, the feasibility of screening, consent, treatment and data acquisition, and potential benefit of post exposure prophylaxis were never tested. Further, contracting between the University of Nottingham and the PIs, GPs and care homes was not completed, so the feasibility of contracting with all the different groups at the scale needed was not tested. ConclusionsThe role of post exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents was not tested because of changes in COVID-19 incidence, prevalence and virulence as a consequence of the vaccination programme that rendered the study unfeasible. Significant progress was made in describing and developing the infrastructure necessary for a large scale Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Products in care homes in all four UK nations. Future workThe role of post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in care home residents remains to be defined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes during a pandemic need to be removed before such studies are possible in the required short timescale.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionSuccessful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents findings from a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes. MethodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was carried out to explore biosafety issues. ResultsThe agreement analysis was carried out on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI: 1.3%-98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%-98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857-0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%-100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549-1). The dry run showed four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation after modification showed no further evidence of contamination. ConclusionCareful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundCOVID-19 has caused high morbidity and mortality in UK care homes. Vaccinating staff members and residents will protect care homes from severe clinical cases. Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine first doses in care homes has been higher among residents compared to staff members. MethodsWe aimed to identify causes of lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst care home staff members within the Liverpool City Council region. An anonymised online survey was distributed to all care home managers between the 21st and the 29th of January 2021. Descriptive analysis was performed on responses. Results46/87 (53%) of Liverpool care homes responded. The mean staff vaccination rate per home was 51.4% (95% CI 43.9-58.8%). The most common reasons for staff not receiving the vaccine were: concerns about lack of vaccine research (37.0%), staff being off-site during vaccination sessions (36.5%), pregnancy and fertility concerns (5.6%), and concerns about allergic reactions (3.2%). Care home managers reported the necessity to combat vaccine hesitancy through meetings and conversations with health professionals, and provision of supporting evidence to dispel vaccine misinformation. ConclusionsVaccine hesitancy was the main cause for reduced vaccine uptake among care home staff members. These concerns could be addressed by targeted evidence-based training, and a public health communication campaign to build vaccine confidence and increase acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. The speed of vaccination roll-out has also led to unexpected logistical issues that lowered vaccine uptake rates. Addressing both these challenges could increase uptake by more than 40%. Key PointsO_LICOVID-19 vaccine uptake rates are lower in staff than residents C_LIO_LIThree main causes of reduced uptake have been identified: vaccine hesitancy, logistical issues, and medical concerns. C_LIO_LIThe main reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns about limited research into vaccine safety, and concerns about long-term impact on pregnancy and fertility. C_LIO_LIAddressing care home staff vaccination concerns should be given priority in these settings. C_LI
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercial point-of-care test, the FebriDx lateral flow device (LFD), in adult patients with suspected COVID-19. The FebriDx LFD is designed to distinguish between viral and bacterial respiratory infection. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, LitCovid, ClinicalTrials.gov and preprint servers on the 13th of January 2021 to identify studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of FebriDx (myxovirus resistance protein A component) versus real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in adult patients suspected of COVID-19. IPD were sought from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Studies were screened for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate linear mixed model was fitted to the data to obtain a pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of the model was constructed. A sub-group analysis was performed by meta-regression using the same modelling approach to compare pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity between patients with a symptom duration of 0 to 7 days and >7 days, and patients aged between 16 to 73 years and >73 years. ResultsTen studies were screened, and three studies with a total of 1481 patients receiving hospital care were included. FebriDx produced an estimated pooled sensitivity of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.855-0.946) and specificity of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.802-0.915) compared to RT-PCR. There were no significant differences between the sub-groups of 0 to 7 days and >7 days in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.473) or specificity (p = 0.853). There were also no significant differences between the sub-groups of 16 to 73 years of age and >73 years of age in estimated pooled sensitivity (p = 0.946) or specificity (p = 0.486). ConclusionsBased on the results of three studies, the FebriDx LFD had high diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 in a hospital setting, however, the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies included, risk of bias, and inconsistent reference standards. Further research is required to confirm these findings, and determine how FebriDx would perform in different healthcare settings and patient populations. Trial registrationThis study was conducted at pace as part of the COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR) national test evaluation programme (https://www.condor-platform.org), and as a result, no protocol was developed, and the study was not registered. Lay summaryTests to diagnose COVID-19 are crucial to help control the spread of the disease and to guide treatment. Over the last few months, tests have been developed to diagnose COVID-19 either by detecting the presence of the virus or by detecting specific markers linked to the virus being active in the body. These tests use complex machines in laboratories accepting samples from large geographical areas. Sometimes it takes days for test results to come back. So, to reduce the wait for results, new portable tests are being developed. These point-of-care (POC) tests are designed to work close to where patients require assessment and care such as hospital emergency departments, GP surgeries or care homes. For these new POC tests to be useful, they should ideally be as good as standard laboratory tests. In this study we looked at published research into a new test called FebriDx. FebriDx is a POC test that detects the bodys response to infection, and is claimed to be able to detect the presence of any viral infection, including infections due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19, as well as bacterial infections which can have similar symptoms. The FebriDx result was compared with standard laboratory tests for COVID-19 performed on the same patients throat and nose swab sample. We were able to analyse data from three studies with a total of 1481 adult patients who were receiving hospital care with symptoms of COVID-19 during the UK pandemic. Approximately one fifth of the patients were diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus using standard laboratory tests for COVID-19. Our analysis demonstrated that FebriDx correctly identified 91 out of 100 patients who had COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. FebriDx also correctly identified 87 out of 100 patients who did not have COVID-19 according to the standard laboratory test. These results have important implications for how these tests could be used. As there were slightly fewer FebriDx false results when the results of the standard laboratory test were positive (9 out of 100) than when the results of the standard laboratory test were negative (13 out of 100), we can have slightly more confidence in a positive test result using FebriDx than a negative FebriDx result. Overall, we have shown that the FebriDx POC test performed well during the UK COVID-19 pandemic when compared with laboratory tests, especially when COVID-19 was indicated. For the future, this means that the FebriDx POC test might be helpful in making a quick clinical decision on whether to isolate a patient with COVID-19-like symptoms arriving in a busy emergency department. However, our results indicate it would not completely replace the need to conduct a laboratory test in certain cases to confirm COVID-19. There are limitations to our findings. For example, we do not know if FebriDx will work in a similar way with patients in different settings such as in the community or care homes. Similarly, we do not know whether other viral and bacterial infections which cause similar COVID-19 symptoms, and are more common in the autumn and winter months, could influence the FebriDx test accuracy. Our findings are also only based on three studies.
