ABSTRACT
ObjectiveIdentify predictors of adverse outcome in a Virtual Hospital (VH) setting for COVID 19. DesignReal-world prospective observational study. SettingVirtual hospital remote assessment service in West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, UK. ParticipantsPatients with suspected COVID-19 illness enrolled directly from the community (post-accident and emergency (A&E) or medical intake assessment) or post-inpatient admission. Main outcome measureDeath or (re-)admission to inpatient hospital care over 28 days. Results900 patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 (455 referred from A&E or medical intake and 445 post-inpatient) were included in the analysis. 76 (8.4%) of these experienced an adverse outcome (15 deaths in admitted patients, 3 deaths in patients not admitted, and 58 additional inpatient admissions). Predictors of adverse outcome were increase in age (OR 1.04 [95%CI: 1.02, 1.06] per year of age), history of cancer (OR 2.87 [95%CI: 1.41, 5.82]), history of mental health problems (OR 1.76 [95%CI: 1.02, 3.04]), severely impaired renal function (OR for eGFR <30 = 9.09 [95%CI: 2.01, 41.09]) and having a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result (OR 2.0 [95% CI: 1.11, 3.60]). ConclusionsThese predictors may help direct intensity of monitoring for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who are being remotely monitored by primary or secondary care services. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for increased risk of adverse outcome associated with cancer and mental health problems. ARTICLE SUMMARYO_ST_ABSStrengths and limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIThe study uses anonymised data from all patients registered for the virtual hospital between 17/03/20 and 17/05/20, and therefore selection bias is not an issue. C_LIO_LIAt the time of this study, this was the only service providing remote follow-up for patients with suspected COVID-19 in the area, and therefore our findings are likely to be relevant to primary care patients receiving remote follow-up. C_LIO_LIWe were able to collect reliable data on a wide range of clinical and demographic features, and reliably follow all patients for the primary outcome for at least two weeks following their discharge from the VH. C_LIO_LIWe were not able to extract detailed symptom or clinical examination data, and there were significant amounts of missing data for some variables. C_LIO_LIOur study is likely underpowered to detect all predictors, especially in the analysis of our two sub-groups C_LI
ABSTRACT
BackgroundDigital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. MethodsWe reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. ResultsWe found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions), Germ Defence. Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results. ConclusionThere was only one intervention that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical practice guideline recommendations on the use of oral patent Traditional Chinese Medicines (PTCMs) for uncomplicated acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) in adults with the existing evidence using results of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review on RCTs and a systematic review of current guidelines on orally taken PTCMs for uncomplicated ALRTIs were performed. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and four Chinese databases were searched from inception to September 2016 for RCTs testing orally taken PTCMs for uncomplicated ALRTIs (excluding pneumonia). Two reviewers independently screened each study, extracted study data, and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consultation with a third reviewer. Clinical practice guidelines for uncomplicated ALRTIs containing PTCM recommendations were identified and quality appraised. The quality of pooled evidence of the RCTs and the guidelines was assessed with GRADE and AGREE respectively. The consistency of the evidence base in RCTs and the guideline recommendations were then compared. RESULTS: For the systematic review of RCTs, 4810 papers were identified, among which 29 RCTs (5093 patients) were included in the review. PTCMs compared to placebo increased the effective treatment rate of cough (3 trials, 949 patients, risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 1.16 to 5.43; low certainty); improved assessment of global health (3 trials, 948 patients, RR 1.70, 1.44 to 2.01; low certainty); and increased the effective rate of specific symptom relief (1 trial, 478 patients, RR 4.01, 2.76 to 5.81; moderate certainty). 21 trials (3432 patients) compared effects of different PTCMs. For the guideline evaluation, 29 PTCMs were recommended for the use of uncomplicated ALRTIs, of which27 had no supportive evidence from RCTs. CONCLUSION: The evidence base of PTCMs for uncomplicated ALRTIs is weak and the guideline recommendations were based on almost no clinical trial evidence. Rigorous clinical research is urgently needed to inform the clinical use of these herbal medicines. Further training in evidence-based medicine methods for Traditional Chinese Medicine guideline developers is essential.
