护理院PROTECT-CH COVID-19平台试验的经验教训。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Philip M Bath, Jonathan Ball, Matthew Boyd, Heather Gage, Matthew Glover, Maureen Godfrey, Bruce Guthrie, Jonathan Hewitt, Robert Howard, Thomas Jaki, Edmund Juszczak, Daniel Lasserson, Paul Leighton, Val Leyland, Wei Shen Lim, Pip Logan, Garry Meakin, Alan Montgomery, Reuben Ogollah, Peter Passmore, Philip Quinlan, Caroline Rick, Simon Royal, Susan D Shenkin, Clare Upton, Adam L Gordon
{"title":"护理院PROTECT-CH COVID-19平台试验的经验教训。","authors":"Philip M Bath, Jonathan Ball, Matthew Boyd, Heather Gage, Matthew Glover, Maureen Godfrey, Bruce Guthrie, Jonathan Hewitt, Robert Howard, Thomas Jaki, Edmund Juszczak, Daniel Lasserson, Paul Leighton, Val Leyland, Wei Shen Lim, Pip Logan, Garry Meakin, Alan Montgomery, Reuben Ogollah, Peter Passmore, Philip Quinlan, Caroline Rick, Simon Royal, Susan D Shenkin, Clare Upton, Adam L Gordon","doi":"10.3310/MTRS8833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronavirus disease-2019 was associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes in 2020-1. Repurposed antiviral drugs might reduce morbidity and mortality through reducing viral transmission, infection, replication and inflammation. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of potential antiviral drugs in care home residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point platform trial to test drugs in a postexposure prophylaxis paradigm. Participants aged 65+ years from United Kingdom care homes, with or without nursing, were eligible for participation. Care homes were to be allocated at random by computer to administer 42 days of antiviral agent (ciclesonide or niclosamide) plus standard care versus standard care alone to residents. The primary outcome at 60 days after randomisation comprised the most serious outcome, which was defined as all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or no infection. Analysis would be by intention to treat using ordinal logistic regression. Other outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, transmission, plus health economic and process evaluation outcomes. The planned sample size was 300 care homes corresponding to 9600 residents. With ~40% of care homes predicted to develop an outbreak during the trial, we needed to recruit 750 homes/24,000 residents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We initiated the trial including protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, data algorithms, intervention selection and training materials. We built a network of principal investigators and staff (91) and care homes (299) to support the trial. However, we never contracted care homes or general practitioners since the trial was stopped in September 2021, as vaccination in care homes had significantly reduced infections. Multiple delays significantly delayed the start date, such as: (1) reduced prioritisation of pandemic trials in 2021; (2) cumbersome mechanisms for choosing the investigational medicinal products; (3) contracting between National Institute for Health and Care Research and the investigational medicinal product manufacturers; (4) publicising the investigational medicinal products; (5) identification of sufficient numbers of care homes; (6) identification and contracting with several thousand general practitioners; (7) limited research nurse availability and (8) identification of adequate insurance to cover care homes for research. Generic challenges included working across the four home nations with their different structures and regulations.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The feasibility of contracting between the sponsor and the principal investigators, general practitioners and care homes; screening, consent and treatment of care home residents; data acquisition and the potential benefit of postexposure prophylaxis were never tested.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The success of vaccination meant that the role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents was not tested. Significant progress was made in developing the infrastructure and expertise necessary for a large-scale clinical trial of investigational medicinal products in United Kingdom care homes.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents remains undefined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes need to be removed urgently before future studies are possible. Further work is required to develop the infrastructure for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products in care homes. Serious consideration should be given to building and then hibernating a pandemic-ready platform trial suitable for care home research.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR133443.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons from the PROTECT-CH COVID-19 platform trial in care homes.\",\"authors\":\"Philip M Bath, Jonathan Ball, Matthew Boyd, Heather Gage, Matthew Glover, Maureen Godfrey, Bruce Guthrie, Jonathan Hewitt, Robert Howard, Thomas Jaki, Edmund Juszczak, Daniel Lasserson, Paul Leighton, Val Leyland, Wei Shen Lim, Pip Logan, Garry Meakin, Alan Montgomery, Reuben Ogollah, Peter Passmore, Philip Quinlan, Caroline Rick, Simon Royal, Susan D Shenkin, Clare Upton, Adam L Gordon\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/MTRS8833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronavirus disease-2019 was associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes in 2020-1. Repurposed antiviral drugs might reduce morbidity and mortality through reducing viral transmission, infection, replication and inflammation. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of potential antiviral drugs in care home residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point platform trial to test drugs in a postexposure prophylaxis paradigm. Participants aged 65+ years from United Kingdom care homes, with or without nursing, were eligible for participation. Care homes were to be allocated at random by computer to administer 42 days of antiviral agent (ciclesonide or niclosamide) plus standard care versus standard care alone to residents. The primary outcome at 60 days after randomisation comprised the most serious outcome, which was defined as all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or no infection. Analysis would be by intention to treat using ordinal logistic regression. Other outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, transmission, plus health economic and process evaluation outcomes. The planned sample size was 300 care homes corresponding to 9600 residents. With ~40% of care homes predicted to develop an outbreak during the trial, we needed to recruit 750 homes/24,000 residents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We initiated the trial including protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, data algorithms, intervention selection and training materials. We built a network of principal investigators and staff (91) and care homes (299) to support the trial. However, we never contracted care homes or general practitioners since the trial was stopped in September 2021, as vaccination in care homes had significantly reduced infections. Multiple delays significantly delayed the start date, such as: (1) reduced prioritisation of pandemic trials in 2021; (2) cumbersome mechanisms for choosing the investigational medicinal products; (3) contracting between National Institute for Health and Care Research and the investigational medicinal product manufacturers; (4) publicising the investigational medicinal products; (5) identification of sufficient numbers of care homes; (6) identification and contracting with several thousand general practitioners; (7) limited research nurse availability and (8) identification of adequate insurance to cover care homes for research. Generic challenges included working across the four home nations with their different structures and regulations.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The feasibility of contracting between the sponsor and the principal investigators, general practitioners and care homes; screening, consent and treatment of care home residents; data acquisition and the potential benefit of postexposure prophylaxis were never tested.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The success of vaccination meant that the role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents was not tested. Significant progress was made in developing the infrastructure and expertise necessary for a large-scale clinical trial of investigational medicinal products in United Kingdom care homes.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>The role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents remains undefined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes need to be removed urgently before future studies are possible. Further work is required to develop the infrastructure for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products in care homes. Serious consideration should be given to building and then hibernating a pandemic-ready platform trial suitable for care home research.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR133443.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010236/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/MTRS8833\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MTRS8833","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病与2020-1年疗养院的死亡率和发病率显著相关。改换用途的抗病毒药物可能通过减少病毒传播、感染、复制和炎症来降低发病率和死亡率。我们的目的是比较潜在的抗病毒药物在养老院居民中的安全性和有效性。方法:我们设计了一项集群随机、开放标签、盲法终点平台试验,在暴露后预防范例中测试药物。来自英国养老院的65岁以上的参与者,有或没有护理,都有资格参加。通过计算机随机分配护理院,给予42天的抗病毒药物(环来奈德或氯胺虫胺)加标准治疗与单独标准治疗。随机分组后60天的主要结局包括最严重的结局,定义为全因死亡率、全因住院、严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2感染或无感染。分析将被意图处理使用有序逻辑回归。其他结果包括主要结果的各个组成部分、传播以及卫生经济和过程评价结果。计划样本量为300家养老院,对应9600名居民。在试验期间,预计约40%的养老院会爆发疫情,因此我们需要招募750个家庭/24,000名居民。结果:我们启动了试验,包括方案、审批、保险、网站、数据库、数据算法、干预措施选择和培训材料。我们建立了一个由主要研究者和工作人员(91人)以及护理院(299人)组成的网络来支持这项试验。然而,自2021年9月试验停止以来,我们从未与护理院或全科医生签约,因为在护理院接种疫苗大大减少了感染。多次延误大大推迟了开始日期,例如:(1)降低了2021年大流行试验的优先次序;(2)临床试验药品选择机制繁琐;(3)国家卫生保健研究所与临床试验药品生产企业签订合同;(四)宣传临床试验药品;(5)确定足够数量的护理院;(六)鉴定和签约数千名全科医生;(7)有限的研究护士可用性和(8)确定足够的保险来覆盖养老院的研究。一般的挑战包括在四个国家的不同结构和法规下工作。限制:主办者与主要研究者、全科医生和护理院签订合同的可行性;安老院住客的甄别、同意及治疗;数据采集和暴露后预防的潜在益处从未进行过测试。结论:疫苗接种的成功意味着未对养老院居民暴露后预防冠状病毒病-2019的作用进行测试。在发展基础设施和专业知识方面取得了重大进展,这是在联合王国护理院进行研究性药品大规模临床试验所必需的。未来工作:2019冠状病毒病暴露后预防在养老院居民中的作用仍不明确。在未来的研究成为可能之前,需要紧急消除在养老院进行研究的重大后勤障碍。需要进一步开展工作,为在养老院进行研究性药品临床试验建立基础设施。应该认真考虑建立一个适合养老院研究的、为大流行做好准备的平台试验。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR133443。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lessons from the PROTECT-CH COVID-19 platform trial in care homes.

Background: Coronavirus disease-2019 was associated with significant mortality and morbidity in care homes in 2020-1. Repurposed antiviral drugs might reduce morbidity and mortality through reducing viral transmission, infection, replication and inflammation. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of potential antiviral drugs in care home residents.

Methods: We designed a cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point platform trial to test drugs in a postexposure prophylaxis paradigm. Participants aged 65+ years from United Kingdom care homes, with or without nursing, were eligible for participation. Care homes were to be allocated at random by computer to administer 42 days of antiviral agent (ciclesonide or niclosamide) plus standard care versus standard care alone to residents. The primary outcome at 60 days after randomisation comprised the most serious outcome, which was defined as all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or no infection. Analysis would be by intention to treat using ordinal logistic regression. Other outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, transmission, plus health economic and process evaluation outcomes. The planned sample size was 300 care homes corresponding to 9600 residents. With ~40% of care homes predicted to develop an outbreak during the trial, we needed to recruit 750 homes/24,000 residents.

Results: We initiated the trial including protocol, approvals, insurance, website, database, data algorithms, intervention selection and training materials. We built a network of principal investigators and staff (91) and care homes (299) to support the trial. However, we never contracted care homes or general practitioners since the trial was stopped in September 2021, as vaccination in care homes had significantly reduced infections. Multiple delays significantly delayed the start date, such as: (1) reduced prioritisation of pandemic trials in 2021; (2) cumbersome mechanisms for choosing the investigational medicinal products; (3) contracting between National Institute for Health and Care Research and the investigational medicinal product manufacturers; (4) publicising the investigational medicinal products; (5) identification of sufficient numbers of care homes; (6) identification and contracting with several thousand general practitioners; (7) limited research nurse availability and (8) identification of adequate insurance to cover care homes for research. Generic challenges included working across the four home nations with their different structures and regulations.

Limitations: The feasibility of contracting between the sponsor and the principal investigators, general practitioners and care homes; screening, consent and treatment of care home residents; data acquisition and the potential benefit of postexposure prophylaxis were never tested.

Conclusions: The success of vaccination meant that the role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents was not tested. Significant progress was made in developing the infrastructure and expertise necessary for a large-scale clinical trial of investigational medicinal products in United Kingdom care homes.

Future work: The role of postexposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease-2019 in care home residents remains undefined. Significant logistical barriers to conducting research in care homes need to be removed urgently before future studies are possible. Further work is required to develop the infrastructure for clinical trials of investigational medicinal products in care homes. Serious consideration should be given to building and then hibernating a pandemic-ready platform trial suitable for care home research.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR133443.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信