Evaluation of an adapted virtual training for master trainers of the WHO Caregiver Skills Training Program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

LAY ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted in-person professional activities. We developed and evaluated a remote training approach for master trainers of the Caregiver Skills Training Program. Master trainers support community practitioners, who in turn deliver the Caregiver Skills Training Program to caregivers of children with developmental delays or disabilities. The Caregiver Skills Training Program teaches caregivers how to use strategies to enhance learning and interactions during everyday play and home activities and routines with their child. The aim of this study was to evaluate the remote training of master trainers on Caregiver Skills Training Program. Twelve out of the 19 practitioners who enrolled in the training completed the study. The training consisted of a 5-day in-person session completed prior to the pandemic, followed by supporting participants' ability to identify Caregiver Skills Training Program strategies through coding of video recordings over 7 weekly meetings and group discussions and ended with participants independently coding a set of 10 videos for Caregiver Skills Training Program strategies. We found all but one participant was able to reliably identify Caregiver Skills Training Program strategies from video recordings despite a lack of ability to practice the Caregiver Skills Training Program strategies with children due to the pandemic. Taken together, our findings illustrate the feasibility and value of remote training approaches in implementing interventions.

Factors associated with mental health symptoms among UK autistic children and young people and their parents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

LAY ABSTRACT: What is already known about the topic: The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated restrictions impacted all of society. There is emerging evidence showing a range of impacts on autistic children and young people and their families. Further research that looks at how individuals coped during the pandemic while considering how they were doing before the pandemic is needed.What this paper adds: This article explores whether how well autistic youth were doing before the pandemic influenced how they coped during the pandemic. It also looked at how well their parents were doing during the pandemic and whether any pre-pandemic factors influenced how they coped. Samples of both primary-school-aged autistic children and autistic teenagers and their parents were surveyed to answer these questions. More engagement and enjoyment in education provision during the pandemic and getting outside more were linked with better child and parental mental health during the pandemic. More attention deficit hyperactivity disorder before the pandemic was linked with more attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and behavioural problems during the pandemic in primary-school-aged autistic children, and more emotional problems during the pandemic in autistic teenagers. Parents with more mental health problems during the pandemic had more mental health problems before the pandemic.Implications for practice, research or policy: Encouraging engagement and enjoyment in education and promoting physical exercise are key intervention targets. Ensuring access to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication and support is important, especially if this is managed jointly across school and home.

Effects of a Parenting Intervention for Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Young Autistic Children Under Conditions of Enhanced Uncertainty: Two-Year Follow-up of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Cohort (ASTAR) During the United Kingdom COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Most young autistic children display emotional and behavioral problems (EBPs). There is evidence that behavioral parenting interventions (BPIs) reduce these. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns can be seen as a natural experiment to test the longer-term effect of BPIs under conditions of increased uncertainty. METHOD: Opportunistic follow-up (n = 49) of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) cohort (n = 62 autistic children aged 6-11 years; originally randomized to a 12-week group BPI [Predictive Parenting; n = 31] or an attention control [Psychoeducation; n = 31]) was conducted during COVID-19-related lockdowns. Measures of parent-reported child irritability and parenting stress were collected at 3 time points (baseline: mean age = 6.7 years; primary endpoint: mean age = 7.1 years, ∼5 months after randomization; and COVID-19 follow-up: mean age = 8.8 years, ∼2 years after randomization). We tested the magnitude of intervention effects using point estimates of differences in child irritability and parenting stress between arms at primary endpoint and COVID-19 follow-up, covarying for baseline scores. We used area under the curve (AUC) analyses to obtain overall estimates of the average intervention effect across all 3 timepoints. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of parents (n = 18). RESULTS: A small but significant intervention effect was found from baseline to COVID-19 follow-up in favor of Predictive Parenting on parent-reported child irritability (d = -0.33, 95% CI = -0.65, -0.01) and parenting stress (d = -0.31, 95% CI = -0.59, -0.03). No overall mean intervention effect for these measures as estimated by the AUC analyses (which takes into account the nonsignificant effect at primary endpoint) was found. Interview feedback on the both interventions was positive, and parents reported using strategies from Predictive Parenting during COVID-19-related restrictions. CONCLUSION: This opportunistic follow-up study at a time of stress indicates the need for careful consideration of how and when to measure the effects of BPIs in autistic child populations. Future trials should consider both the most appropriate endpoint and in what context effects may be more likely to be seen. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Autism Spectrum Treatment and Resilience (ASTAR); https://www.isrctn.com; 91411078.

Interplay between long-term vulnerability and new risk: Young adolescent and maternal mental health immediately before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We examine whether there has been an increase in young adolescent and maternal mental health problems from pre- to post-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Children aged 11-12 years and their mothers participating in a UK population-based birth cohort (Wirral Child Health and Development Study) provided mental health data between December 2019 and March 2020, and again 3 months after lockdown, 89% (N = 202) of 226 assessed pre-COVID-19. Emotional and behavioural problems were assessed by self- and maternal reports, and long-term vulnerability by maternal report of prior child adjustment, and maternal prenatal depression. RESULTS: The young adolescents reported a 44% (95% confidence interval [CI: 23%-65%]) increase in symptoms of depression and 26% (95% CI [12%-40%]) for post-traumatic stress disorder, with corresponding maternal reports of child symptoms of 71% (95% CI [44%-99%]) and 43% (95% CI 29%-86%). Disruptive behaviour problem symptoms increased by 76% (95% CI [43%-109%]) particularly in children without previous externalising symptoms. Both female gender and having had high internalising symptoms earlier in childhood were associated with elevated rates of depression pre-pandemic, and with greater absolute increases during COVID-19. Mothers' own depression symptoms increased by 42% (95% CI [20%-65%]), and this change was greater among mothers who had prenatal depression. No change in anxiety was observed among children or mothers. None of these increases were moderated by COVID-19-related experiences such as frontline worker status of a parent. Prior to the pandemic, rates of maternal and child depression were greater in families experiencing higher deprivation, but changed only in less deprived families, raising their rates to those of the high deprivation group. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has led to a marked increase in mental health problems in young adolescents and their mothers with concomitant requirements for mental health services to have the resources to adapt to meet the level and nature of the needs.

Evaluation and improvement of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) for COVID-19: a multi-hospital study.

BACKGROUND: The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification. METHODS: Training cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models. RESULTS: A baseline model of 'NEWS2 + age' had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites. CONCLUSIONS: NEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.

Biological responses to COVID-19: Insights from physiological and blood biomarker profiles.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the spectrum and course of biological responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have important therapeutic implications. We sought to characterise biological responses among patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 based on serial, routinely collected, physiological and blood biomarker values. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1335 patients hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (median age 70 years, 56 % male), between 1st March and 30th April 2020. Latent profile analysis was performed on serial physiological and blood biomarkers. Patient characteristics, comorbidities and rates of death and admission to intensive care, were compared between the latent classes. A five class solution provided the best fit. Class 1 "Typical response" exhibited a moderately elevated and rising C-reactive protein (CRP), stable lymphopaenia, and the lowest rates of 14-day adverse outcomes. Class 2 "Rapid hyperinflammatory response" comprised older patients, with higher admission white cell and neutrophil counts, which declined over time, accompanied by a very high and rising CRP and platelet count, and exibited the highest mortality risk. Class 3 "Progressive inflammatory response" was similar to the typical response except for a higher and rising CRP, though similar mortality rate. Class 4 "Inflammatory response with kidney injury" had prominent lymphopaenia, moderately elevated (and rising) CRP, and severe renal failure. Class 5 "Hyperinflammatory response with kidney injury" comprised older patients, with a very high and rising CRP, and severe renal failure that attenuated over time. Physiological measures did not substantially vary between classes at baseline or early admission. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our identification of five distinct classes of biomarker profiles provides empirical evidence for heterogeneous biological responses to COVID-19. Early hyperinflammatory responses and kidney injury may signify unique pathophysiology that requires targeted therapy.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers are not associated with severe COVID-19 infection in a multi-site UK acute hospital trust.

AIMS: The SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cell entry. It has been suggested that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), which are commonly used in patients with hypertension or diabetes and may raise tissue ACE2 levels, could increase the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated this hypothesis in a consecutive cohort of 1200 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at two hospitals with a multi-ethnic catchment population in London (UK). The mean age was 68 ± 17 years (57% male) and 74% of patients had at least one comorbidity. Overall, 415 patients (34.6%) reached the primary endpoint of death or transfer to a critical care unit for organ support within 21 days of symptom onset. A total of 399 patients (33.3%) were taking ACEi or ARB. Patients on ACEi/ARB were significantly older and had more comorbidities. The odds ratio for the primary endpoint in patients on ACEi and ARB, after adjustment for age, sex and co-morbidities, was 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.47-0.84, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for increased severity of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients on chronic treatment with ACEi or ARB. A trend towards a beneficial effect of ACEi/ARB requires further evaluation in larger meta-analyses and randomised clinical trials.