Daily testing for contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and attendance and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges: an open-label, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: School-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261. FINDINGS: Between March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19-May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75-1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55-1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54-1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30-1·23]). INTERPRETATION: Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development-from theory to implementation.

BACKGROUND: The effective impact of patient engagement (PE) across the medicines development continuum is widely acknowledged across diverse health stakeholder groups, including health authorities; however, the practical applications of how to implement meaningful and consistent PE are not always addressed. Guidance for the practical implementation of PE requires granularity, and the need for such guidance has been identified as a priority. We describe the co-production and summarize the content of how-to guides that focus on PE in the early stages of medicines development. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder working groups (WGs) were established by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) for how-to guide development. How-to guides were co-produced with patients for PE activities identified as priorities through public consultation and by WGs. Guides were developed by applying PE quality guidance and associated quality criteria in an iterative process. How-to guides underwent internal review and validation by experts (ie, those with relevant experience in the particular PE activity or focus area) in specific focus groups and external review and validation through appropriate events and public consultation. RESULTS: Overall, 103 individual contributors from 38 organizations (representing eight stakeholder groups, including patients/patient organizations) and from 14 countries were organized into WGs and workstreams. Each WG comprised 15-30 contributors with PE experience relevant to the specific how-to guide. How-to guides were developed for PE in the early discovery and preclinical phases; PE in the development of a clinical outcomes assessment strategy; and PE in clinical trial protocol design. The how-to guides have a standardized format and structure to promote user familiarity. They provide detailed guidance and examples that are relevant to the individual PE activity and aim to facilitate the practical implementation of PE. CONCLUSIONS: The how-to guides form a comprehensive series of actionable and stepwise resources that build from and integrate the PE quality criteria across the medicines continuum. They will be made freely available through PFMD's Patient Engagement Management Suite ( pemsuite.org ) and shared widely to a variety of audiences in different settings, ensuring access to diverse patient populations. Implementation of these guides should advance the field of PE in bringing new medicines to the market and ultimately will benefit patients. Medicines are developed to help patients improve their health and lives. Many organizations and individuals want to ensure that medicines are developed to meet real patient needs and to address what is most important to patients. Finding out what patients need and what patients want requires good patient engagement, but knowing how to do patient engagement is not always clear. This is because medicines development is complicated, and a lot of different steps, people, and organizations are involved. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) was established in 2015 to connect individuals and organizations that are committed to making medicines not just for patients but with patients. To do this, PFMD brought together patients and other groups of people with relevant experience and good ideas on how to achieve patient engagement in the real-world setting. Together, PFMD has developed "how-to guides" for patient engagement that cover the main activities along the medicines development process. The guides are free to use and provide practical advice and examples that anyone can use in their patient engagement activities. The how-to guides will also help patients to understand medicines development and how best they can participate in this process to address their needs.

Progression of Keratoconus in Patients While Awaiting Corneal Cross-linking: A Prospective Clinical Study.

PURPOSE: To assess topographical changes in patients with keratoconus while awaiting corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment. METHODS: In this prospective, double-center, observational clinical study, patients with keratoconus were enrolled. Progression was defined as a change in the curvature within the cone area of at least 1.00 diopter (D) on tangential map and a thinning of 20 µm at the thinnest point after measurements taken at least 3 months apart. Morphological parameters were assessed at baseline (day of listing for CXL) and on the day of CXL treatment, including slit-lamp biomicroscopy, keratometry (maximum, minimum, and mean), and thinnest corneal thickness using corneal tomography (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). RESULTS: One hundred four eyes of 104 patients were included. The waiting time was 84.8 ± 62.9 days. Twenty-five percent of patients showed evidence of progression while waiting for treatment. Patients who progressed while waiting for treatment were younger (22.2 ± 6.79 years) compared to those who did not show evidence of progression (25.4 ± 5.62 years) (P = .02). Stratification by age groups showed a significant worsening of maximum keratometry of 1.18 ± 1.37 D in patients younger than 18 years compared to those 18 to 26 years of age and those older than 26 years (P = .002 and .042, respectively). The multivariate model confirmed that the progression steepening of the maximum keratometry while waiting for treatment was associated with age (P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that stratification of waiting time according to the patient's age is required to reduce the risk of further progression of keratoconus. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(3):177-180.].

What makes a compliant Phase III and pre-launch patient advocacy strategy?

BACKGROUND: A key task for the pharmaceutical industry is to understand the compliance implications of engaging with a patient advocacy group (PAG). This presents challenges for the industry to negotiate the ethical and reputational issues that can arise when working with a PAG. OBJECTIVE: To gain the views of pharmaceutical industry executives on future compliance challenges when working with PAGs. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted two surveys among two sets of industry executives: one group focussed on market access roles and the other focussed on non-market access roles. RESULTS: Transparency was identified as the biggest challenge, followed by project rationale and then by project ownership. CONCLUSION: We explore how this can be overcome and make recommendations on how best to work compliantly with PAGs.