Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, -3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; -9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols.

Primary versus Specialist Care for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Individual-Participant Data-Level Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Primary care clinicians may be well placed to play a greater role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of sleep apnea management in primary versus specialist care, using an individual-participant data meta-analysis to determine whether age, sex, severity of OSA, and daytime sleepiness impacted outcomes. Methods: Data sources were the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP, Scopus, ProQuest, U.S. National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and ISRCTN registry (inception until 09-25-2019). Hand searching was undertaken. Two authors independently assessed articles and included trials that randomized adults with a suspected diagnosis of sleep apnea to primary versus specialist management within the same study and reported daytime sleepiness using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (range 0-24; >10 indicates pathological sleepiness; minimum clinically important difference 2 units) at baseline and follow-up. Results: The primary analysis combined data from 970 (100%) participants (four trials). Risk of bias was assessed (Cochrane Tool). One-stage intention-to-treat analysis showed a slightly smaller decrease in daytime sleepiness (0.8; 0.2 to 1.4), but greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure in primary care (-1.9; -3.2 to -0.6 mm Hg), with similar findings in the per-protocol analysis. Primary care-based within-trial healthcare system costs per participant were lower (-$448.51 U.S.), and quality-adjusted life years and daytime sleepiness improvements were less expensive. Similar primary outcome results were obtained for subgroups in both management settings. Conclusions: Similar outcomes in primary care at a lower cost provide strong support for implementation of primary care-based management of sleep apnea.

Implementing mHealth-Enabled Integrated Care for Complex Chronic Patients With Osteoarthritis Undergoing Primary Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: Prospective, Two-Arm, Parallel Trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a disabling condition that is often associated with other comorbidities. Total hip or knee arthroplasty is an effective surgical treatment for osteoarthritis when indicated, but comorbidities can impair their results by increasing complications and social and economic costs. Integrated care (IC) models supported by eHealth can increase efficiency through defragmentation of care and promote patient-centeredness. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing a mobile health (mHealth)-enabled IC model for complex chronic patients undergoing primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: As part of the Horizon 2020 Personalized Connected Care for Complex Chronic Patients (CONNECARE) project, a prospective, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel implementation trial was conducted in the rural region of Lleida, Catalonia, Spain. For 3 months, complex chronic patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty and their caregivers received the combined benefits of the CONNECARE organizational IC model and the eHealth platform supporting it, consisting of a patient self-management app, a set of integrated sensors, and a web-based platform connecting professionals from different settings, or usual care (UC). We assessed changes in health status (12-item short-form survey [SF-12]), unplanned visits and admissions during a 6-month follow-up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were recruited for the mHealth-enabled IC arm, and 30 patients were recruited for the UC arm. Both groups were statistically comparable for baseline characteristics, such as age; sex; type of arthroplasty; and Charlson index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Barthel index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Pfeiffer mental status questionnaire scores. Patients in both groups had significant increases in the SF-12 physical domain and total SF-12 score, but differences in differences between the groups were not statistically significant. IC patients had 50% fewer unplanned visits (P=.006). Only 1 hospital admission was recorded during the follow-up (UC arm). The IC program generated savings in different cost scenarios, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio demonstrated cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty can benefit from the implementation of patient-centered mHealth-enabled IC models aimed at empowering patients and facilitating transitions from specialized hospital care to primary care. Such models can reduce unplanned contacts with the health system and reduce overall health costs, proving to be cost-effective. Overall, our findings support the notion of system-wide cross-organizational care pathways supported by mHealth as a successful way to implement IC for patients undergoing elective surgery.

Implementing Mobile Health-Enabled Integrated Care for Complex Chronic Patients: Intervention Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care can generate health and social care efficiencies through the defragmentation of care and adoption of patient-centered preventive models. eHealth can be a key enabling technology for integrated care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a mobile health (mHealth)-enabled integrated care model for complex chronic patients. METHODS: As part of the CONNECARE Horizon 2020 project, a prospective, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel implementation trial was held in a rural region of Catalonia, Spain. During 3 months, elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure and their carers experienced the combined benefits of the CONNECARE organizational integrated care model and the eHealth platform supporting it, consisting of a patient self-management app, a set of integrated sensors, and a web-based platform connecting professionals from different settings, or usual care. We assessed changes in health status with the 12-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-12), unplanned visits and admissions during a 6-month follow up, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were included in the integrated care arm and 28 patients receiving usual care were included in the control arm (mean age 82 years, SD 7 years; mean Charlson index 7, SD 2). Integrated care patients showed a significant increase in the SF-12 physical domain with a mean change of +3.7 (SD 8.4) (P=.004) and total SF-12 score with a mean change of +5.8 (SD 12.8) (P=.003); however, the differences in differences between groups were not statistically significant. Integrated care patients had 57% less unplanned visits (P=.004) and 50% less hospital admissions related to their main chronic diseases (P=.32). The integrated care program generated savings in different cost scenarios and the ICER demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the program. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a patient-centered mHealth-enabled integrated care model empowering the patient, and connecting primary, hospital, and social care professionals reduced unplanned contacts with the health system and health costs, and was cost-effective. These findings support the notion of system-wide cross-organizational care pathways supported by mHealth as a successful way to implement integrated care.

Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults With Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exist. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be efficacious for outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain, between 17 March and 26 May 2020. Patients recently diagnosed with <5-day of symptom onset were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1 followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or usual care. Outcomes were reduction of viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, disease progression up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD, 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 log10 copies/mL (SD, 1.82), and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs -1.41 log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs -3.44). Treatment did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1% control vs 5.9% intervention) nor shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs 10 days, intervention). No relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild COVID-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Prevention of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Current strategies for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are limited to nonpharmacologic interventions. Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a postexposure therapy to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but definitive evidence is lacking. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving asymptomatic contacts of patients with polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-confirmed Covid-19 in Catalonia, Spain. We randomly assigned clusters of contacts to the hydroxychloroquine group (which received the drug at a dose of 800 mg once, followed by 400 mg daily for 6 days) or to the usual-care group (which received no specific therapy). The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 within 14 days. The secondary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined by symptoms compatible with Covid-19 or a positive PCR test regardless of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed for up to 28 days. RESULTS: The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care. Results were similar in the hydroxychloroquine and usual-care groups with respect to the incidence of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 (5.7% and 6.2%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.42]). In addition, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than usual care (18.7% and 17.8%, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than in the usual-care group (56.1% vs. 5.9%), but no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient. (Funded by the crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono and others; BCN-PEP-CoV2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04304053.).

Implementing Mobile Health-Enabled Integrated Care for Complex Chronic Patients: Patients and Professionals' Acceptability Study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care (IC) can promote health and social care efficiency through prioritization of preventive patient-centered models and defragmentation of care and collaboration across health tiers, and mobile health (mHealth) can be the cornerstone allowing for the adoption of IC. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the acceptability, usability, and satisfaction of an mHealth-enabled IC model for complex chronic patients in both patients and health professionals. METHODS: As part of the CONNECARE Horizon 2020 project, a prospective, pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel, hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted from July 2018 to August 2019 in a rural region of Catalonia, Spain. Home-dwelling patients 55 years and older with chronic conditions and a history of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure (use case [UC] 1), or a scheduled major elective hip or knee arthroplasty (UC2) were recruited. During the 3 months, patients experienced an mHealth-enabled IC model, including a self-management app for patients, a set of integrated sensors, and a web-based platform connecting professionals from different settings or usual care. The Person-Centered Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) and the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) assessed person-centeredness and continuity of care. Acceptability was assessed for IC arm patients and staff with the Net Promoter Score (NPS) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: The analyses included 77 IC patients, 58 controls who completed the follow-up, and 30 health care professionals. The mean age was 78 (SD 9) years in both study arms. Perception of patient-centeredness was similarly high in both arms (usual care: mean P3CEQ score 16.1, SD 3.3; IC: mean P3CEQ score 16.3, SD 2.4). IC patients reported better continuity of care than controls (usual care: mean NCQ score 3.7, SD 0.9; IC: mean NCQ score 4.0, SD 1; P=.04). The scores for patient acceptability (UC1: NPS +67%; UC2: NPS +45%) and usability (UC1: mean SUS score 79, SD 14; UC2: mean SUS score 68, SD 24) were outstanding. Professionals' acceptability was low (UC1: NPS -25%; UC2: NPS -35%), whereas usability was average (UC1: mean SUS score 63, SD 20; UC2: mean SUS score 62, SD 19). The actual use of technology was high; 77% (58/75) of patients reported physical activity for at least 60 days, and the ratio of times reported over times prescribed for other sensors ranged from 37% for oxygen saturation to 67% for weight. CONCLUSIONS: The mHealth-enabled IC model showed outstanding results from the patients' perspective in 2 different UCs but lacked maturity and integration with legacy systems to be fully accepted by professionals. This paper provides useful lessons learned through the development and assessment process and may be of use to organizations willing to develop or implement mHealth-enabled IC for older adults.

Management of obstructive sleep apnoea in a primary care vs sleep unit setting: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care (PC) and sleep unit (SU) models for the management of subjects with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). METHODS: Multicentre, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 302 subjects with suspected OSA and/or resistant hypertension were consecutively enrolled, 149 were treated at 11 PC units and 153 patients at a SU. The primary outcomes were a 6-month change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score and Health Utilities Index (HUI). The non-inferiority margin for the ESS score was -2.0. RESULTS: A total of 80.2% and 70.6% of the PC and SU patients were diagnosed with OSA, respectively, and 59.3% and 60.4% of those were treated with CPAP in PC and SU units, respectively. The Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index was similar between the groups (PC vs SU (median (IQR); 23.1 (26.8) events/h vs 21.8 (35.2) events/h), and the baseline ESS score was higher in the PC than in the SU group (10.3 (6.6) vs 9 (7.2)). After 6 months, the ESS score of the PC group decreased from a mean of 10.1 to 7.6 (-2.49; 95% CI -3.3 to -1.69), and that of the SU group decreased from 8.85 to 5.73 (-3.11; 95% CI -3.94 to 2.28). The adjusted difference between groups for the mean change in the ESS score was -1.25 (one-sided 95% CI -1.88; p=0.025), supporting the non-inferiority of PC management. We did not observe differences in the HUI between groups. The cost analysis showed a median savings of €558.14/patient for the PC setting compared with the SU setting. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected OSA, the PC model did not result in a worse ESS score or HUI than the specialist model and generated savings in terms of management cost. Therefore, the PC model was more cost-efficient than the SU model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Results; >>NCT02234765, Clinical Trials.gov.

Predictors of CPAP compliance in different clinical settings: primary care versus sleep unit.

BACKGROUND: Good adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment improves the patient's quality of life and decreases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies that have analyzed the adherence to CPAP were performed in a sleep unit (SU) setting. The involvement of primary care (PC) in the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients receiving CPAP treatment could introduce factors related to the adherence to treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare the baseline predictors of CPAP compliance in SU and PC settings. METHODS: OSA patients treated with CPAP were followed for 6 months in SU or PC setting. We included baseline clinical and anthropometrical variables, the Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) score, the quality of life index, and the Charlson index. A logistic regression was performed for each group to determine the CPAP compliance predictors. Discrimination and calibration were performed using the area under the curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. RESULTS: We included 191 patients: 91 in the PC group and 100 in the SU group. In 74.9% of the patients, the compliance was ≥ 4 h per day, with 80% compliance in the SU setting and 69.2% compliance in the PC setting (p = 0.087). The predictors of CPAP compliance were different between SU and PC settings. Body mass index, ESS, and CPAP pressure were predictors in the SU setting, and ESS, gender, and waist circumference were predictors in the PC setting. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors of adequate CPAP compliance vary between SU and PC settings. Detecting compliance predictors could help in the planning of early interventions to improve CPAP adherence.

Knowledge management through two virtual communities of practice (Endobloc and Pneumobloc).

We developed two virtual communities of practice (Endobloc and Pneumobloc) to increase the interaction between general practitioners and nurses in primary care and hospital endocrinologists and pulmonologists. They were designed and developed using an existing web 2.0-based virtual network belonging to the local National Health System, and we quantitatively assessed the usefulness through the participation and use during the first 24 months after the launch in 2010. A total of 26,372 visits (47% Endobloc's visits) and 2351 contributions (Endobloc's contribution 38.9%) to both virtual communities of practice were registered during the first 24 months. The most popular sections were the e-Blog and the e-Consultations section in both virtual communities of practice, but some differences in the pattern of use in other sections were observed. Activity on the virtual communities of practice occurred throughout the day including weekends and holiday periods. We showed that virtual communities of practice are feasible under real-life clinical practice.