Implementing an outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 treatment in an emergency epidemic context: a mixed methods study among operational and research stakeholders within the Coverage trial, Bordeaux (France).

BACKGROUND: The emergency set-up and implementation of outpatient clinical trials on epidemic emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19 raise many issues in terms of research structuration, regulations, and health systems organization. We aimed to describe the experience and points of view of different stakeholders involved in a French home-based outpatient trial on COVID-19 and to identify the early barriers and facilitators to the trial implementation. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in July 2020. A self-administered questionnaire was emailed to 213 clinical, operational and research stakeholders involved in the Coverage trial; individual semi-directed interviews were conducted among 14 stakeholders. Questionnaire data and written interview notes are presented together by key theme. RESULTS: One hundred fifty six stakeholders responded to the questionnaire. 53.4% did not have prior experience in clinical research. The motivation of most stakeholders to participate in the Coverage trial was to feel useful during the pandemic. 87.9% agreed that the trial had an unusual set-up timeframe, and many regretted a certain lack of regulatory flexibility. Mobile medical teams and specific professional skills were perceived as instrumental for outpatient research. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a home-based outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 was perceived as relevant and innovative although requiring important adaptations of usual professional responsibilities and standard research procedures. Lessons learned from the Coverage trial underline the need for improved networks between hospital and community medicine, and call for a dedicated and reactive outpatient research platform on emerging or threatening infectious diseases.

Inhaled ciclesonide for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 in adults at risk of adverse outcomes: a randomised controlled trial (COVERAGE).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients at risk of developing severe illness. METHODS: COVERAGE is an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Outpatients with documented COVID-19, risk factors for aggravation, symptoms for ≤7 days, and absence of criteria for hospitalization are randomly allocated to either a control arm or one of several experimental arms, including inhaled ciclesonide. The primary efficacy endpoint is COVID-19 worsening (hospitalization, oxygen therapy at home, or death) by Day 14. Other endpoints are adverse events, maximal follow-up score on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, sustained alleviation of symptoms, cure, and RT-PCR and blood parameter evolution at Day 7. The trial's Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the first interim analysis of the ciclesonide arm and recommended halting it for futility. The results of this analysis are reported here. RESULTS: The analysis involved 217 participants (control 107, ciclesonide 110), including 111 women and 106 men. Their median age was 63 years (interquartile range 59-68), and 157 of 217 (72.4%) had at least one comorbidity. The median time since first symptom was 4 days (interquartile range 3-5). During the 28-day follow-up, 2 participants died (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 0), 4 received oxygen therapy at home and were not hospitalized (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 2/110 [1.8%]), and 24 were hospitalized (control 10/107 [9.3%], ciclesonide 14/110 [12.7%]). In intent-to-treat analysis of observed data, 26 participants reached the composite primary endpoint by Day 14, including 12 of 106 (11.3%, 95% CI: 6.0%-18.9%) in the control arm and 14 of 106 (13.2%; 95% CI: 7.4-21.2%) in the ciclesonide arm. Secondary outcomes were similar for both arms. DISCUSSION: Our findings are consistent with the European Medicines Agency's COVID-19 task force statement that there is currently insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial for patients with COVID-19.

Sexual risk behaviour reduction interventions in primary care in Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections are a major public health issue, both in France and worldwide. Primary healthcare professionals play a key role in sexual health and prevention, but few take on this subject. Prevention strategies are diverse, thus risk reduction strategies focussing on behavioural changes are still needed. PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review to analyse risk reduction interventions focussing on behavioural change in OECD countries in primary healthcare settings to help develop a prevention tool easy to apply in primary care. METHODS: We searched for English- or French-language controlled trials in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PsycINFO, PsycArticle, PBSC, SocINDEX, Google Scholar, and CAIRN, supplemented with the bibliographies of previous systematic reviews. Thirty controlled, randomized, or nonrandomized trials were included in the systematic review. We did not conduct any meta-analysis due to the diversity of populations, outcomes and study designs. RESULTS: There are efficient interventions in primary healthcare settings for reducing sexual risk behaviours and/or incident STI. Their efficiency seems to grow with the length and intensity of the intervention. Most interventions target only young, high-risk patients, and their long-term impact is uncertain. Most included studies had an overall risk of bias estimated as high or with some concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Some tools could be used in primary care, with possible efficiency though results are difficult to generalize, and value should be assessed in daily practice. Future research should also focus on older population given the epidemiological evolutions, but also lower-risk population to target all patients seen in primary care settings.

Greater Risk of Pregnancy Complications for Female Surgeons: A Cross-Sectional Electronic Survey.

BACKGROUND: Female surgeons are exposed to physical and mental stressors that differ from those of other specialties. We aimed to assess whether female surgeons are more at risk of pregnancy complications than women in other medical specialties. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional electronic survey of female physicians working in the French Region Nouvelle-Aquitaine who were pregnant between 2013 and 2018. A pregnancy complication was defined as the occurrence of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, prematurity, fetal congenital malformation, stillbirth, or medical termination of the pregnancy. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the risk of pregnancy complications for female surgeons relative to women practicing in other medical specialties. RESULTS: Among the 270 women included, 52 (19.3%) experienced pregnancy complications and 28 (10.4%) were surgeons. In the multivariate analysis, female surgeons had a higher risk of pregnancy complications: adjusted odds ratio = 3.53, 95% confidence interval [1.27-9.84]. CONCLUSION: Further research is necessary to identify the hazards specifically involved in the practice of surgery to be able to propose preventive actions targeted to female surgeons during their pregnancy.

Ambulatory drug changes in the elderly after hospital discharge: A cohort study.

AIM: To describe the ambulatory changes in drug prescriptions 3 months after hospital discharge among elderly patients aged 75 and over, and to identify the reasons for these changes. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted on subjects, discharged between 09/2016 and 01/2017 from the Bordeaux University Hospital. Prescription forms were collected from patients' pharmacists. The main outcome was the occurrence of at least one significant change (SC) defined as an initiation, a discontinuation, a switch or change in drug daily dosage as regards the drugs prescribed upon hospital discharge and those prescribed 3 months after. Whenever drug SC occurred, general practitioners were requested to elicit reasons for such changes. RESULTS: Among the 126 patients included in our study, 73 underwent a 3-month follow-up period, without death or being re-hospitalised. 87.7% of them had at least one SC 3 months after discharge, with an average of 3.1±2.5 SC per patient. Main changes involved: discontinuation or dose decrease of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antalgics, betablockers and calcium channel blockers; start or dose increase of diuretics, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. In patients with a 3-month follow-up period, 27.4% underwent at least one ADR-induced SC. CONCLUSION: Most elderly patients experience drug prescription changes after discharge. Some, according to drug iatrogenic, could be avoided through better cooperation between hospital and ambulatory prescribers.

Home Treatment of Older People with Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19): A structured Summary of a Study Protocol for a Multi-Arm Multi-Stage (MAMS) Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Tolerability of Several Experimental Treatments to Reduce the Risk of Hospitalisation or Death in outpatients aged 65 years or older (COVERAGE trial).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of several repurposed drugs to prevent hospitalisation or death in patients aged 65 or more with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and no criteria for hospitalisation. TRIAL DESIGN: Phase III, multi-arm (5) and multi-stage (MAMS), randomized, open-label controlled superiority trial. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1:1:1:1 to the following strategies: Arm 1: Control arm Arms 2 to 5: Experimental treatment arms Planned interim analyses will be conducted at regular intervals. Their results will be reviewed by an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Experimental arms may be terminated for futility, efficacy or toxicity before the end of the trial. New experimental arms may be added if new evidence suggests that other treatments should be tested. A feasibility and acceptability substudy as well as an immunological substudy will be conducted alongside the trial. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria are: 65-year-old or more; Positive test for SARS-CoV-2 on a nasopharyngeal swab; Symptoms onset within 3 days before diagnosis; No hospitalisation criteria; Signed informed consent; Health insurance. Exclusion criteria are: Inability to make an informed decision to participate (e.g.: dementia, guardianship); Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale ≥7; Long QT syndrome; QTc interval > 500 ms; Heart rate <50/min; Kalaemia >5.5 mmol/L or <3.5 mmol/L; Ongoing treatment with piperaquine, halofantrine, dasatinib, nilotinib, hydroxyzine, domperidone, citalopram, escitalopram, potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 CYP3A4 isoenzyme, repaglinide, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, theophylline, pyrazinamide, warfarin; Known hypersensitivity to any of the trial drugs or to chloroquine and other 4-aminoquinolines, amodiaquine, mefloquine, glafenine, floctafenine, antrafenine, ARB; Hepatic porphyria; Liver failure (Child-Pugh stage ≥B); Stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m²); Dialysis; Hypersentivity to lactose; Lactase deficiency; Abnormalities in galactose metabolism; Malabsorption syndrome; Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency; Symptomatic hyperuricemia; Ileus; Colitis; Enterocolitis; Chronic hepatitis B virus disease. The trial is being conducted in France in the Bordeaux, Corse, Dijon, Nancy, Paris and Toulouse areas as well as in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Participants are recruited either at home, nursing homes, general practices, primary care centres or hospital outpatient consultations. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The four experimental treatments planned in protocol version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020) are: (1) Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg, 2 tablets BID on day 0, 2 tablets QD from day 1 to 9; (2) Imatinib 400 mg, 1 tablet QD from day 0 to 9; (3) Favipiravir 200 mg, 12 tablets BID on day 0, 6 tablets BID from day 1 to 9; (4) Telmisartan 20 mg, 1 tablet QD from day 0 to 9. The comparator is a complex of vitamins and trace elements (AZINC Forme et Vitalité®), 1 capsule BID for 10 days, for which there is no reason to believe that they are active on the virus. In protocol version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020): People in the control arm will receive a combination of vitamins and trace elements; people in the experimental arms will receive hydroxychloroquine, or favipiravir, or imatinib, or telmisartan. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with an incidence of hospitalisation and/or death between inclusion and day 14 in each arm. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to each arm using a web-based randomisation tool. Participants not treated with an ARB or ACEI prior to enrolment are randomized to receive the comparator or one of the four experimental drugs. Participants already treated with an ARB or ACEI are randomized to receive the comparator or one of the experimental drugs except telmisartan (i.e.: hydroxychloroquine, imatinib, or favipiravir). Randomisation is stratified on ACEI or ARBs treatment at inclusion and on the type of residence (personal home vs. nursing home). BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-label trial. Participants, caregivers, investigators and statisticians are not blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 1057 participants will be enrolled if all arms are maintained until the final analysis and no additional arm is added. Three successive futility interim analyses are planned, when the number of participants reaches 30, 60 and 102 in the control arm. Two efficacy analyses (interim n°3 and final) will be performed successively. TRIAL STATUS: This describes the Version 1.2 (April 8th, 2020) of the COVERAGE protocol that was approved by the French regulatory authority and ethics committee. The trial was opened for enrolment on April 15th, 2020 in the Nouvelle Aquitaine region (South-West France). Given the current decline of the COVID-19 pandemic in France and its unforeseeable dynamic in the coming months, new trial sites in 5 other French regions and in Luxembourg are currently being opened. A revised version of the protocol was submitted to the regulatory authority and ethics committee on June 15th, 2020. It contains the following amendments: (i) Inclusion criteria: age ≥65 replaced by age ≥60; time since first symptoms <3 days replaced by time since first symptoms <5 days; (ii) Withdrawal of the hydroxychloroquine arm (due to external data); (iii) increase in the number of trial sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov on April 22nd, 2020 (Identifier: NCT04356495): and on EudraCT on April 10th, 2020 (Identifier: 2020-001435-27). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting 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).

Discontinuing statins or not in the elderly? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The risk/benefit ratio of using statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in elderly people has not been established. The main objectives of the present study are to assess the cost-effectiveness of statin cessation and to examine the non-inferiority of statin cessation in terms of mortality in patients aged 75 years and over, treated with statins for primary prevention of CV events. METHODS: The "Statins in the elderly" (SITE) study is an ongoing 3-year follow-up, open-label comparative multi-centre, randomized clinical trial that is being conducted in two parallel groups in outpatient primary care offices. Participants meeting the following criteria are included: people aged 75 years and older being treated with statins as primary prevention for CV events, who provide informed consent. After randomization, patients in the statin-cessation strategy are instructed to withdraw their treatment. In the comparison strategy, patients continue their statin treatment at the usual dosage. The cost-effectiveness of the statin-cessation strategy compared to continuing statins will be estimated through the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at 36 months, from the perspective of the French healthcare system. Overall mortality will be the primary clinical endpoint. We assumed that the mortality rate at 3 years will be 15%. The sample size was computed to achieve 90% power in showing the non-inferiority of statin cessation, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5% of the between-group difference in overall mortality. In total, the SITE study will include 2430 individuals. DISCUSSION: There is some debate on the value of statins in people over 75 years old, especially for primary prevention of CV events, due to a lack of evidence of their efficacy in this population, potential compliance-related events, drug-drug interactions and side effects that could impair quality of life. Data from clinical trials guide the initiation of medication therapy for primary or secondary prevention of CV disease but do not define the timing, safety, or risks of discontinuing the agents. The SITE study is one of the first to examine whether treatment cessation is a cost-effective and a safe strategy in people of 75 years and over, formerly treated with statins. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02547883. Registered on 11 September 2015.

Development and pilot testing of a tool to assess evidence-based practice skills among French general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There is currently an absence of valid and relevant instruments to evaluate how Evidence-based Practice (EBP) training improves, beyond knowledge, physicians' skills. Our aim was to develop and test a tool to assess physicians' EBP skills. METHODS: The tool we developed includes four parts to assess the necessary skills for applying EBP steps: clinical question formulation; literature search; critical appraisal of literature; synthesis and decision making. We evaluated content and face validity, then tested applicability of the tool and whether external observers could reliably use it to assess acquired skills. We estimated Kappa coefficients to measure concordance between raters. RESULTS: Twelve general practice (GP) residents and eleven GP teachers from the University of Bordeaux, France, were asked to: formulate four clinical questions (diagnostic, prognosis, treatment, and aetiology) from a proposed clinical vignette, find articles or guidelines to answer four relevant provided questions, analyse an original article answering one of these questions, synthesize knowledge from provided synopses, and decide about the four clinical questions. Concordance between two external raters was excellent for their assessment of participants' appraisal of the significance of article results (K = 0.83), and good for assessment of the formulation of a diagnostic question (K = 0.76), PubMed/Medline (K = 0.71) or guideline (K = 0.67) search, and of appraisal of methodological validity of articles (K = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Our tool allows an in-depth analysis of EBP skills, thus could supplement existing instruments focused on knowledge or specific EBP step. The actual usefulness of such tools to improve care and population health remains to be evaluated.

Protocole of a controlled before-after evaluation of a national health information technology-based program to improve healthcare coordination and access to information.

BACKGROUND: Improvement of coordination of all health and social care actors in the patient pathways is an important issue in many countries. Health Information (HI) technology has been considered as a potentially effective answer to this issue. The French Health Ministry first funded the development of five TSN ("Territoire de Soins Numérique"/Digital health territories) projects, aiming at improving healthcare coordination and access to information for healthcare providers, patients and the population, and at improving healthcare professionals work organization. The French Health Ministry then launched a call for grant to fund one research project consisting in evaluating the TSN projects implementation and impact and in developing a model for HI technology evaluation. METHODS: EvaTSN is mainly based on a controlled before-after study design. Data collection covers three periods: before TSN program implementation, during early TSN program implementation and at late TSN program implementation, in the five TSN projects' territories and in five comparison territories. Three populations will be considered: "TSN-targeted people" (healthcare system users and people having characteristics targeted by the TSN projects), "TSN patient users" (people included in TSN experimentations or using particular services) and "TSN professional users" (healthcare professionals involved in TSN projects). Several samples will be made in each population depending on the objective, axis and stage of the study. Four types of data sources are considered: 1) extractions from the French National Heath Insurance Database (SNIIRAM) and the French Autonomy Personalized Allowance database, 2) Ad hoc surveys collecting information on knowledge of TSN projects, TSN program use, ease of use, satisfaction and understanding, TSN pathway experience and appropriateness of hospital admissions, 3) qualitative analyses using semi-directive interviews and focus groups and document analyses and 4) extractions of TSN implementation indicators from TSN program database. DISCUSSION: EvaTSN is a challenging French national project for the production of evidenced-based information on HI technologies impact and on the context and conditions of their effectiveness and efficiency. We will be able to support health care management in order to implement HI technologies. We will also be able to produce an evaluation toolkit for HI technology evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02837406 , 08/18/2016.

[Benefits and risks for primary prevention with statins in the elderly]. / Bénéfices et risques des statines en prévention primaire chez la personne âgée.

CONTEXT: Statins in primary prevention before 75 years old reduce cardiovascular events from 20 to 30% and mortality from 10% with acceptable side effects. We investigated whether these results persisted for patients aged 75 and older taking statin. METHOD: Methodic review of large randomized clinical trials and meta-analyzes that included patients 75 years and older treated with statins in primary prevention. RESULTS: Since the 1990s, a score of randomized controlled trials studying statins versus placebo in primary prevention were published and studied in meta-analyses. Exclusion criteria, including persons older than 70 years, are often restrictive. The impact on all-cause mortality in the four main studies and meta-analyses in over 75 years has not been demonstrated. On the other hand, a recent meta-analyses of observational studies including subjects between 70 and 89 years treated with statins found that low total cholesterol was associated with a moderate decrease in cardiovascular mortality, with no decrease in all-cause mortality. Moreover, in a common context of comorbidities in this age group, statins may be responsible for many adverse effects, drug interactions and impaired quality of life. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of formal evidence of effectiveness in terms of all-cause mortality and a high level of adverse effects, the benefit/risk of primary prevention with statins is not established in the elderly. The economic weight of statin prescriptions and their possible impact on quality of life justify an economic analysis of discontinuing statin therapy for people 75 years and older.