Search

Objectives: Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory effects that may provide protection against unrelated infectious diseases. We aimed to determine whether BCG vaccination protects adults against COVID-19., Design: Phase III double-blind randomised controlled trial., Setting: Healthcare centres in Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic., Participants: 3988 healthcare workers with no prior COVID-19 and no contraindication to BCG., Intervention: Randomised 1:1 using a web-based procedure to receive a single 0.1 mL intradermal dose of BCG-Denmark (BCG group, n = 1999) or saline (placebo group, n = 1989)., Main Outcome Measures: Difference in incidence of (i) symptomatic and (ii) severe COVID-19 during the 12 months following randomisation in the modified intention to treat (mITT) population (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 naïve at inclusion)., Results: Of the 3988 participants randomised, 3386 had a negative baseline SARS-CoV-2 test and were included in the mITT population. The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was higher in the BCG group (22.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.6 to 24.5%) compared with the placebo group (19.6%; 95% CI 17.6 to 21.5%); adjusted difference +3.0% points (95% CI 0.2 to 5.8%; p = 0.04). The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of severe COVID-19 (mainly comprising those reporting being unable to work for ≥3 consecutive days) was 11.0% in the BCG group (95% CI 9.5 to 12.4%) compared with 9.6% in the placebo group (95% CI 8.3 to 11.1%); adjusted difference +1.3% points (95% CI -0.7 to 3.3%, p = 0.2). Breakthrough COVID-19 (post COVID-19 vaccination) and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the two groups. There were 18 hospitalisations due to COVID-19 (11 in BCG group, 7 in placebo group; adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.02, p = 0.4) and two deaths due to COVID-19, both in the placebo group., Conclusions: Compared to placebo, vaccination with BCG-Denmark increased the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 over 12 months among healthcare workers and did not decrease the risk of severe COVID-19 or post-vaccination breakthrough COVID-19., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04327206., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The trial is financially supported by the Foundations listed in the Funding section. Authors disclose funding support over the past 36 months: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Ideas Grant (NM), NHMRC Investigator Grant (NC), Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship Grant (KPP). Outside of the submitted work, JCr has received grants or contracts from Sanofi, MSD & CEPI; payment or honoraria for presentations from Pfizer and participates on Latin American data safety monitoring/advisory boards for mRNA-1273 (Modern/Zodiac), RSV maternal vaccine (Pfizer), Qdenga vaccine (Takeda) and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir-Paxlovid (Pfizer). KG is a member of the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Human Research Ethics Committee (the primary ethics committee providing approval for the BRACE trial) and Director of Research Operations at RCH; she abstained from all discussion, voting, approval and review related to the BRACE trial. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Design: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial., Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses., Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup., Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care., Implications for the Profession And/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required., Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care., Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE., Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory "off-target" effects that have been hypothesized to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)., Methods: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned health care workers to receive the BCG-Denmark vaccine or saline placebo and followed them for 12 months. Symptomatic Covid-19 and severe Covid-19, the primary outcomes, were assessed at 6 months; the primary analyses involved the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with a negative test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at baseline., Results: A total of 3988 participants underwent randomization; recruitment ceased before the planned sample size was reached owing to the availability of Covid-19 vaccines. The modified intention-to-treat population included 84.9% of the participants who underwent randomization: 1703 in the BCG group and 1683 in the placebo group. The estimated risk of symptomatic Covid-19 by 6 months was 14.7% in the BCG group and 12.3% in the placebo group (risk difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to 5.5; P = 0.13). The risk of severe Covid-19 by 6 months was 7.6% in the BCG group and 6.5% in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.34); the majority of participants who met the trial definition of severe Covid-19 were not hospitalized but were unable to work for at least 3 consecutive days. In supplementary and sensitivity analyses that used less conservative censoring rules, the risk differences were similar but the confidence intervals were narrower. There were five hospitalizations due to Covid-19 in each group (including one death in the placebo group). The hazard ratio for any Covid-19 episode in the BCG group as compared with the placebo group was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.59). No safety concerns were identified., Conclusions: Vaccination with BCG-Denmark did not result in a lower risk of Covid-19 among health care workers than placebo. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; BRACE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04327206.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Concerns have been expressed about the relationship between reduced levels of health care utilisation and the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to elicit and explore the views of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and their ophthalmic care. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with thirty-five patients with nAMD taking part in a larger diagnostic accuracy study of home-monitoring tests. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling to capture a range of key characteristics including age, gender and time since initial treatment. Transcribed interview data were analysed using a deductive and inductive thematic approach. Three themes emerged from the analysis: i. access to eye clinic care. ii. COVID-19-mitigating factors and care delivery and iii. social and personal circumstances. Participants reported anxieties about cancelled or delayed appointments, limited communication from clinic-based services about appointments, and the impact of this on their ongoing care. Despite these concerns, there was apprehension about attending appointments due to infection risk and a perception that nAMD patients are a 'high risk' group. Views of those who attended clinics during the study period were, however, positive, with social distancing and infection control measures providing reassurance. These findings contribute to our understanding about experiences of patients with nAMD during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have potential implications for future planning of care services in similar circumstances. Innovative approaches may be required to address issues related to access to care, including concerns about delayed or cancelled appointments.