Relationship between measured and prescribed dialysate sodium in haemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dialysate sodium (DNa) prescription policy differs between haemodialysis (HD) units, and the optimal DNa remains uncertain. We sought to summarize the evidence on the agreement between prescribed and delivered DNa, and whether the relationship varied according to prescribed DNa. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed from inception to 26 February 2020 for studies reporting measured and prescribed DNa. We analysed results reported in aggregate with random-effects meta-analysis. We analysed results reported by individual sample, using mixed-effects Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses included method of sodium measurement, dialysis machine manufacturer and proportioning method. RESULTS: Seven studies, representing 908 dialysate samples from 10 HD facilities (range 16-133 samples), were identified. All but one were single-centre studies. Studies were of low to moderate quality. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between measured and prescribed DNa {mean difference = 0.73 mmol/L [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 2.58; P = 0.44]} but variability across studies was substantial (I2 = 99.3%). Among individually reported samples (n = 295), measured DNa was higher than prescribed DNa by 1.96 mmol/L (95% CI 0.23-3.69) and the 95% limits of agreement ranged from -3.97 to 7.88 mmol/L. Regression analysis confirmed a strong relationship between prescribed and measured DNa, with a slope close to 1:1 (ß = 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies suggest that, on average, prescribed and measured DNa are similar. However, between- and within-study differences were large. Further consideration of the precision of delivered DNa is required to inform rational prescribing.

Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial.

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

An overview of mobile applications (apps) to support the coronavirus disease 2019 response in India.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: The potential benefits of mobile health (mHealth) initiatives to manage the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been explored. The Government of India, State governments, and healthcare organizations have developed various mobile apps for the containment of COVID-19. This study was aimed to systematically review COVID-19 related mobile apps and highlight gaps to inform the development of future mHealth initiatives. METHODS: Google Play and the Apple app stores were searched using the terms 'COVID-19', 'coronavirus', 'pandemic', and 'epidemic' in the first week of April 2020. A list of COVID-19-specific functions was compiled based on the review of the selected apps, the literature on epidemic surveillance, and national and international media reports. The World Health Organization guideline on Digital Health Interventions was used to classify the app functions under the categories of the general public, health workers, health system managers, and data services. RESULTS: The search yielded 346 potential COVID-19 apps, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Dissemination of untargeted COVID-19-related information on preventative strategies and monitoring the movements of quarantined individuals was the function of 27 (54%) and 19 (32%) apps, respectively. Eight (16%) apps had a contact tracing and hotspot identification function. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the current emphasis on the development of self-testing, quarantine monitoring, and contact tracing apps. India's response to COVID-19 can be strengthened by developing comprehensive mHealth solutions for frontline healthcare workers, rapid response teams and public health authorities. Among this unprecedented global health emergency, the Governments must ensure the necessary but least intrusive measures for disease surveillance.

Methodological challenges to collecting clinical and economic outcome data: Lessons from the pilot dialysis outcomes India study.

AIM: Contemporary data on clinical and economic outcomes and quality of care amongst dialysis patients in India are not available. This pilot prospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of data collection and follow up within routine dialysis practice to inform setting up a dialysis registry. METHODS: An electronic instrument was developed to collect information on clinical and socio-demographic characteristics, outcome and out-of-pocket expenditure on incident patients commencing haemodialysis (HD) at two centres. Dialysis unit staff were trained in collecting and entering information on an electronic case record form. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months to ascertain outcomes and treatment related costs. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients (37 females, age 47.5 ± 17.2 years) were enrolled. After 1 year, 38 (32%) patients were continuing on HD; 35 (29%) had died, 30 (25%) underwent a kidney transplant, and 16 (13%) had stopped dialysis. We noted a high prevalence of catastrophic health expenditure. Data collection was facilitated by appointing a designated staff member who received an incentive. Collection of financial information, clinical course for patients transferring out of the primary unit and the cause of death, when it occurred out of hospital was challenging. CONCLUSION: Prospective data collection of incident dialysis patients was feasible but is resource-intensive. High out-of-pocket costs force some patients to stop dialysis and can generate a sense of despair. Poor patient experiences and suspicion over the use of such data adversely affects collection of important clinical and health economic data.

Colchicine to reduce coronavirus disease-19-related inflammation and cardiovascular complications in high-risk patients post-acute infection with SARS-COV-2-a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no known effective pharmacological therapy for long COVID, which is characterized by wide-ranging, multisystemic, fluctuating, or relapsing symptoms in a large proportion of survivors of acute COVID. This randomized controlled trial aims to assess the safety and efficacy of an anti-inflammatory agent colchicine, to reduce symptoms among those at high risk of developing long COVID. METHODS: This multi-centre, parallel arm, 1:1 individual randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind superiority trial will enrol 350 individuals with persistent post-COVID symptoms. Participants will be randomized to either colchicine 0.5 mg once daily (< 70 kg) or twice daily (≥ 70 kg) or matched placebo for 26 weeks and will be followed up until 52 weeks after randomization. The primary trial objective is to demonstrate the superiority of colchicine over a placebo in improving distance walked in 6 min at 52 weeks from baseline. The secondary objectives are to assess the efficacy of colchicine compared to placebo with respect to lung function, inflammatory markers, constitutional symptoms, and mental health state. In a sub-sample of 100 participants, cardiac biomarkers of myocardial injury and myocardial oedema using MRI will be compared. DISCUSSION: Persistent inflammatory response following SARS-CoV-19 is one of the postulated pathophysiological mechanisms of long COVID. Colchicine, a low-cost anti-inflammatory agent, acts via multiple inflammatory pathways and has an established safety profile. This trial will generate evidence for an important health priority that can rapidly translate into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial has been registered prospectively on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov with registration CTRI/2021/11/038234 dated November 24, 2021.

Combination of the chemokine receptor type 2 (CCR2) antagonist DMX-200 and candesartan for COVID-19: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a chemokine receptor type 2 antagonist, DMX-200 (repagermanium), in combination with an angiotensin receptor blocker, candesartan, improves clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Ten acute care hospitals in India. PARTICIPANTS: Adults <65 years old intended for hospital admission with moderate/severe COVID-19 disease (respiratory rate ≥24 breaths per minute or oxygen saturation ≤93% on room air). INTERVENTION: DMX-200 120 mg two times per day, or placebo, on background of titratable candesartan commencing at 4 mg two times per day, for 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease severity on a modified WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) on day 14. Secondary outcomes included the WHO scale at days 28, 60, 90 and 180; intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory failure or death within 28 days; length of hospitalisation; and requirement for ventilatory support or dialysis. RESULTS: Between December 2021 and August 2022, 518 people were screened, with 49 randomised to DMX-200 or placebo on a background of candesartan. The study was terminated early due to recruitment barriers, including an external requirement to restrict enrolment to adults <65 years old, contributing to a 91% screen failure rate. The median WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) score at day 14 for both groups was 1 (IQR 1-1), indicating most participants were discharged with no limitations on activities by this time. Formal comparison was not performed due to the small sample size. One participant receiving DMX-200 died of COVID-19 disease progression. No participants required ICU admission, ventilation or dialysis. Median length of hospitalisation in both groups was 6 days (IQR 6-7 days). WHO scale scores were similar at 28, 60, 90 and 180 days. CONCLUSION: Due to recruitment barriers, the study was unable to determine whether DMX-200 improves clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05122182.

Awareness to action through multi-channel advocacy for effective tobacco control in India: a case study from Bihar.

Developing a synergistic relationship between the government machinery and civil society is crucial for advancing the tobacco control movement in India. With diverse patterns of tobacco use and far reach of the tobacco industry, stringent enforcement mechanisms along with innovative and culturally appropriate advocacy efforts are imperative. In this paper, we evaluate multi- level tobacco control interventions undertaken in the Indian state of Bihar and the subsequent success achieved in strengthening government-non-government partnerships and commitment towards tobacco control in the state. Our experience shows that sustained advocacy at the policy and grassroots levels, along with willingness of the administrative machinery, can present result- oriented tobacco control initiatives at the state and grassroots levels.

Angiotensin receptor blockers for the treatment of covid-19: pragmatic, adaptive, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether disrupting the renin angiotensin system with angiotensin receptor blockers will improve clinical outcomes in people with covid-19. DESIGN: CLARITY was a pragmatic, adaptive, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 17 hospital sites in India and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were at least 18 years old, previously untreated with angiotensin receptor blockers, with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who had been admitted to hospital for management of covid-19. INTERVENTION: Oral angiotensin receptor blockers (telmisartan in India) or placebo (1:1) for 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was covid-19 disease severity using a modified World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO scale) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were WHO scale scores at day 28, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and respiratory failure. Analyses were evaluated on an ordinal scale in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 3 May 2020 and 13 November 2021, 2930 people were screened for eligibility, with 393 randomly assigned to angiotensin receptor blockers (of which 388 (98.7%) to telmisartan 40 mg/day) and 394 to the control group. 787 participants were randomised: 778 (98.9%) from India and nine (1.1%) from Australia. The median WHO scale score at day 14 was 1 (interquartile range 1-1) in 384 participants assigned angiotensin receptor blockers and 1 (1-1) in 382 participants assigned placebo (adjusted odds ratio 1.51 (95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.23), probability of an odds ratio of >1 (Pr(OR>1)=0.98). WHO scale scores at day 28 showed little evidence of difference between groups (1.02 (0.55 to 1.87), Pr(OR>1)=0.53). The trial was stopped when a prespecified futility rule was met. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted to hospital for covid-19, mostly with mild disease, not requiring oxygen, no evidence of benefit, based on disease severity score, was found for treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers, using predominantly 40 mg/day of telmisartan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394117.

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial from India.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months. SETTING: 9 hospitals across India. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment). INTERVENTION: Participants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone. MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Participants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2020/05/025067.

Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia.

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. METHODS: We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. RESULTS: We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.

Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

PURPOSE: We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. METHODS: We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. CONCLUSION: We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.

Protocol for the Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 binds to membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) which may result in downregulation of membrane-bound ACE2. ACE2 is a key regulator of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and is responsible for degrading angiotensin II and thereby counteracting its pro-inflammatory, pro-fibrotic effects mediated through the angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R). As AT1R is directly blocked by angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), these agents may offer a safe, low-cost solution for reducing COVID-19 respiratory outcomes. METHODS AND DISCUSSION: CLARITY is a pragmatic, adaptive, two-arm, multi-centre, comparative effectiveness phase III randomised controlled trial that examines whether ARBs reduce COVID-19 severity among high-risk patients. Recruiting in India and Australia, the trial will compare treatment with a maximum tolerated daily dose of an ARB to standard of care. Treatment allocation is blinded in India but open-label in Australia due to interruptions to placebo supply in the latter. The primary endpoint is a 7-point ordinal scale of clinical states, ranging from no limitation of activities (category 1) to death (category 7), assessed on day 14. Secondary outcomes include the 7-point scale assessed at day 28 and 28- and 90-day mortality. The design adapts the sample size based on accumulating data via frequent interim analyses and the use of predictive probability to determine whether the current sample size is sufficient or continuing accrual would be futile. The trial commenced recruitment on 18 August 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04394117 . Registered on 19 May 2020. Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2020/07/026831).

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus standard personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers: the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation(HOPE) trial: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and standard personal protective equipment (PPE) compared to the use of standard personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers(HCWs) in India TRIAL DESIGN: HOPE is an investigator initiated multi-centre open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs currently working in an environment with direct exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection are eligible to participate in the trial. The trial aims to be conducted across 20-30 centres (public and private hospitals) in India. HCWs who decline consent, who have a confirmed COVID-19 infection, those who are already on chloroquine/HCQ for any indication, or if pregnant or breast-feeding, or have known QT prolongation or are on medications that when taken with HCQ can prolong the QTc will be excluded. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions to be compared in this trial are standard practice (use of recommended PPE) and HCQ plus standard practice. In the standard practice arm, HCWs will use recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. They will be discouraged from taking HCQ to prevent contamination and contacted every week for the duration of the study to ascertain if they have taken any HCQ. Any such use will be reported as a protocol violation. In the intervention arm, HCWs will be administered 800mg of HCQ as a loading dose on the day of randomization (as two 400mg doses 12hrs apart) and subsequently continued on 400mg once a week for 12 weeks. This will be in addition to the use of recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. HCWs will collect the drug once every week from designated research and pharmacy staff at site. A weekly phone reminder will be provided to participants in this arm to ensure compliance. An ECG will be performed between 4-6 weeks in this arm and if the QTc is prolonged (greater than 450milliseconds), the drug will be stopped. Follow-up will however continue. Participants in both arms will receive a weekly phone call for evaluation of the primary outcome, to monitor protocol compliance and development of any adverse events (in the HCQ group). MAIN OUTCOMES: Participants will be followed on a weekly basis. The primary outcome is the proportion of HCWs developing laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection within 6 months of randomization. We will also evaluate a number of secondary outcomes, including hospitalization related to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit admission due to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, all-cause mortality, need for organ support ( non-invasive or invasive ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy), ICU and hospital length of stay, readmission, days off work and treatment-related adverse events. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be conducted through a password-protected, secure website using a central, computer-based randomisation program. Randomisation will be stratified by participating institutions and by the role of HCW - nursing, medical and other. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either standard practice only or HCQ plus standard practice. Allocation concealment is maintained by central web-based randomisation BLINDING (MASKING): This is an unblinded study: study assigned treatment will be known to the research team and participant. Bias will be mitigated through an objective end point (laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 6,950 HCWs will be enrolled (3475 to the intervention) and (3475 to the standard practice group) to detect a 25% relative reduction, or 2.5% absolute reduction, in the infection rate from an estimated baseline infection rate of 10%, with 80% statistical power using a two-sided test at 5% level of significance. Available data from China and Italy indicate that the rate of infection among frontline healthcare workers varies between 4% to 12%. We therefore assumed a baseline infection rate of 10% among HCWs. This sample size allows for a potential loss to follow-up rate of 10% and a potential non-compliance rate of 10% in both the treatment and control arms. TRIAL STATUS: HOPE protocol version 3.0 dated June 3rd 2020. Recruitment started on 29th June 2020 and currently 56 participants have been enrolled. Planned completion of enrolment is January 31st 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2020/05/025067 (prospectively registered) Date of registration: 6th May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expedited dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Study to Test and Operationalize Preventive Approaches for CKD of Undetermined Etiology in Andhra Pradesh, India.

INTRODUCTION: High prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) not associated with known risk factors has been reported from coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Study to Test and Operationalize Preventive Approaches for Chronic Kidney Disease of Undetermined Etiology in Andhra Pradesh (STOP CKDu AP) aims to ascertain the burden (prevalence and incidence) of CKD, the risk factor profile, and the community perceptions about the disease in the Uddanam area of Andhra Pradesh. METHODS: Study participants will be sampled from the Uddanam area using multistage cluster random sampling. Information will be collected on the demographic profile, occupational history, and presence of conventional as well as nonconventional risk factors. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) will be estimated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation, and proteinuria will be measured. All abnormal values will be confirmed by repeat testing after 3 months. Cases of CKD not associated with identified etiologies will be identified. Biospecimens will be stored to explore future hypotheses. The entire cohort will be followed up every 6 months to determine the incidence of CKD and to identify risk factors for decline in kidney function. Qualitative studies will be performed to understand the community perceptions and expectations with respect to the interventions. IMPLICATIONS: CKD is an important public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries. This study will establish the prevalence and determine the incidence of CKD not associated with known risk factors in a reported high-burden region, and will provide insights to help design targeted health systems responses. The findings will contribute to the policy development to tackle CKD in the region and will permit international comparisons with other regions with similar high prevalence.

Current Status and Future Directions of mHealth Interventions for Health System Strengthening in India: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential increase in mobile phone users in India, a large number of public health initiatives are leveraging information technology and mobile devices for health care delivery. Given the considerable financial and human resources being invested in these initiatives, it is important to ascertain their role in strengthening health care systems. OBJECTIVE: We undertook this review to identify the published mobile health (mHealth) or telemedicine initiatives in India in terms of their current role in health systems strengthening. The review classifies these initiatives based on the disease areas, geographical distribution, and target users and assesses the quality of the available literature. METHODS: A search of the literature was done to identify mHealth or telemedicine articles published between January 1997 and June 2017 from India. The electronic bibliographic databases and registries searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, and Clinical Trial Registry of India. The World Health Organization health system building block framework was used to categorize the published initiatives as per their role in the health system. Quality assessment of the selected articles was done using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and National Institutes of Health, US tools. RESULTS: The combined search strategies yielded 2150 citations out of which 318 articles were included (primary research articles=125; reviews and system architectural, case studies, and opinion articles=193). A sharp increase was seen after 2012, driven primarily by noncommunicable disease-focused articles. Majority of the primary studies had their sites in the south Indian states, with no published articles from Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern parts of India. Service delivery was the primary focus of 57.6% (72/125) of the selected articles. A majority of these articles had their focus on 1 (36.0%, 45/125) or 2 (45.6%, 57/125) domains of health system, most frequently service delivery and health workforce. Initiatives commonly used client education as a tool for improving the health system. More than 91.2% (114/125) of the studies, which lacked a sample size justification, had used convenience sampling. Methodological rigor of the selected trials (n=11) was assessed to be poor as majority of the studies had a high risk for bias in at least 2 categories. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, mHealth initiatives are being increasingly tested to improve health care delivery in India. Our review highlights the poor quality of the current evidence base and an urgent need for focused research aimed at generating high-quality evidence on the efficacy, user acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions aimed toward health systems strengthening. A pragmatic approach would be to include an implementation research component into the existing and proposed digital health initiatives to support the generation of evidence for health systems strengthening on strategically important outcomes.

Tobacco control law enforcement and compliance in Odisha, India--implications for tobacco control policy and practice.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use is a leading cause of deaths and disabilities in India, killing about 1.2 lakh people in 2010. About 29% of adults use tobacco on a daily basis and an additional 5% use it occasionally. In Odisha, non-smoking forms are more prevalent than smoking forms. The habit has very high opportunity cost as it reduces the capacity to seek better nutrition, medical care and education. In line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) is a powerful Indian national law on tobacco control. The Government of Odisha has shown its commitment towards enforcement and compliance of COTPA provisions. In order to gauge the perceptions and practices related to tobacco control efforts and level of enforcement of COTPA in the State, this cross-sectional study was carried out in seven selected districts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A semi-structured interview schedule was developed, translated into Odiya and field-tested for data collection. It mainly contained questions related to knowledge on provisions of section 4-7 of COTPA 2003, perception about smoking, chewing tobacco and practices with respect to compliance of selected provisions of the Act. 1414 samples were interviewed. RESULTS: The highest percentage of respondents was from the government departments. 70% of the illiterates consumed tobacco as compared to 34% post graduates. 52.1% of the respondents were aware of Indian tobacco control laws, while 80.8% had knowledge about the provision of the law prohibiting smoking in public places. However, 36.6% of the respondents reported that they had 'very often' ' seen tobacco products being sold 'to a minor', while 31.2% had seen tobacco products being sold 'by a minor'. In addition, 24.8% had 'very often' seen tobacco products being sold within a radius of 100 yards of educational institutions.