Search

Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation., Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up., Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat., Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from Oct 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. On June 15, 2023, JSN-V-T completed one 3-h paid consultancy assignment for Merck Sharp & Dohme on a subject unrelated to COVID-19, and has given two paid lectures for Gilead who have manufactured COVID-19 treatments in 2022–23, and one paid lecture for AstraZeneca in 2022, who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. JSN-V-T has consulted occasionally for Moderna (May 1, 2023 onwards) who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. DML has received personal fees from Gilead for an educational video and from Merck for a roundtable discussion, speaker fees from Biotest, Takeda, and Astra Zeneca, and support to attend a conference from Octapharma. DML holds research grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol Myers Squibb, has received consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline paid to his institution, all outside the current work, and reports giving lectures for Biotest, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. JFS has participated in a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee for the sotrovimab paediatric programme for GlaxoSmithKline (fee paid to the institution). JB reports being the Principle Investigator on The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency commissioned study with GlaxoSmithKline to look at the evolution of variants in sotrovimab treated patients, and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, hVIVO, Moderna, and Symbios (donated to UCL). SK has been a speaker for Pfizer and ViiV Healthcare. KH reports a grant to Cardiff University (via University of Oxford), and was on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Health Technology Assessment Funding Strategy Group until November, 2022, and is currently Deputy Chair of the Research Professors panel. BRS reports consulting fees were paid to his former employer (Berry Consultants) for tiral design and implementation. NPBT reports being on a single advisory board in July, 2021, with Merck & Co. OvH reports consulting fees from MindGap. AU reports honoria from Merck & Co, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca in relation to this disease area and manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) screening programmes testing islet autoantibodies (IAbs) in childhood can reduce life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis. General population screening is required to detect the majority of children with T1D, since in >85% there is no family history. Age 3-5 years has been proposed as an optimal age for a single screen approach., Design: Capillary samples were collected from children attending their preschool vaccination and analysed for IAbs to insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen-2 and zinc transporter 8 using radiobinding/luciferase immunoprecipitation system assays. Acceptability was assessed using semistructured interviews and open-ended postcard questionnaires with parents., Setting: Two primary care practices in Oxfordshire, UK., Main Outcome Measures: The ability to collect capillary blood to test IAbs in children at the routine preschool vaccination (3.5-4 years)., Results: Of 134 parents invited, 66 (49%) were recruited (median age 3.5 years (IQR 3.4-3.6), 26 (39.4%) male); 63 provided a sample (97% successfully), and one participant was identified with a single positive IAb. Parents (n=15 interviews, n=29 postcards) were uniformly positive about screening aligned to vaccination and stated they would have been less likely to take part had screening been a separate visit. Themes identified included preparedness for T1D and the long-term benefit outweighing short-term upset. The perceived volume of the capillary sample was a potential concern and needs optimising., Conclusions: Capillary IAb testing is a possible method to screen children for T1D. Aligning collection to the preschool vaccination visit can be convenient for families without the need for an additional visit., Competing Interests: Competing interests: REJB has been an independent advisor to Provention Bio. JAT consults for GSK, Vesalius Therapeutics, Precion and Immunocore. CMD has lectured for or has been involved as an advisor to the following companies: Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Genzyme, Janssen, Servier, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Provention Bio, UCB, MSD, Vielo Bio, Avotres, Worg and Novartis. CMD holds a patent jointly with Midatech., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Given the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb + ) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb + ) or living with (multiple IAb + ) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb + ; (2) when people who are IAb + are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb + individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb + individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care., (© 2024. American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.)

Importance: Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common debilitating condition in women, with limited prophylactic options. d-Mannose has shown promise in trials based in secondary care, but effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies and community settings has not been established., Objective: To determine whether d-mannose taken for 6 months reduces the proportion of women with recurrent UTI experiencing a medically attended UTI., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-group, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial took place across 99 primary care centers in the UK. Participants were recruited between March 28, 2019, and January 31, 2020, with 6 months of follow-up. Participants were female, 18 years or older, living in the community, and had evidence in their primary care record of consultations for at least 2 UTIs in the preceding 6 months or 3 UTIs in 12 months. Invitation to participate was made by their primary care center. A total of 7591 participants were approached, 830 responded, and 232 were ineligible or did not proceed to randomization. Statistical analysis was reported in December 2022., Intervention: Two grams daily of d-mannose powder or matched volume of placebo powder., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of women experiencing at least 1 further episode of clinically suspected UTI for which they contacted ambulatory care within 6 months of study entry. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration, antibiotic use, time to next medically attended UTI, number of suspected UTIs, and UTI-related hospital admissions., Results: Of 598 women eligible (mean [range] age, 58 [18-93] years), 303 were randomized to d-mannose (50.7%) and 295 to placebo (49.3%). Primary outcome data were available for 583 participants (97.5%). The proportion contacting ambulatory care with a clinically suspected UTI was 150 of 294 (51.0%) in the d-mannose group and 161 of 289 (55.7%) in the placebo group (risk difference, -5%; 95% CI, -13% to 3%; P = .26). Estimates were similar in per protocol analyses, imputation analyses, and preplanned subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any secondary outcome measures., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, daily d-mannose did not reduce the proportion of women with recurrent UTI in primary care who experienced a subsequent clinically suspected UTI. d-Mannose should not be recommended for prophylaxis in this patient group., Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13283516.

Background: Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993., Objective: We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework., Methods: Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC., Results: We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval., Conclusions: The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies., (©Xinchun Gu, Conall Watson, Utkarsh Agrawal, Heather Whitaker, William H. Elson, Sneha Anand, Ray Borrow, Anna Buckingham, Elizabeth Button, Lottie Curtis, Dominic Dunn, Alex J. Elliot, Filipa Ferreira, Rosalind Goudie, Uy Hoang, Katja Hoschler, Gavin Jamie, Debasish Kar, Beatrix Kele, Meredith Leston, Ezra Linley, Jack Macartney, Gemma L Marsden, Cecilia Okusi, Omid Parvizi, Catherine Quinot, Praveen Sebastianpillai, Vanashree Sexton, Gillian Smith, Timea Suli, Nicholas P B Thomas, Catherine Thompson, Daniel Todkill, Rashmi Wimalaratna, Matthew Inada-Kim, Nick Andrews, Victoria Tzortziou-Brown, Rachel Byford, Maria Zambon, Jamie Lopez-Bernal, Simon de Lusignan. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 03.04.2024.)

Background: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome., Trial Registration: ISRCTN86534580., Findings: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months., Interpretation: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted., Funding: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC&#95;PC&#95;19079)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Drs. Saville, Berry, Detry, Fitzgerald and Saunders report grants from The University of Oxford, for the Sponsor's grant from the UK NIHR, for statistical design and analyses for the PRINCIPLE trial during the conduct of the study. Prof de Lusignan is Director of the Oxford-RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre and reports that through his University he has had grants outside the submitted work from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus and Takeda for vaccine related research, and membership of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Seqirus. Profs Hobbs and Butler report grants from UKRI, during the conduct of the study. All other authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19., Methods and Analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid)., Eligibility Criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England (DHSC) from October 2017 to March 2022. The views expressed in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC. JN-V-T reports a lecture fee from Gilead Sciences Ltd (manufacturer of remdesivir) and a paid Influenza Advisory Board for F. Hoffmann-La Roche (manufacturer of tocilizumab), both after March 2022. KH is a member of the following NIHR committees: HTA General Committee, HTA Funding Strategy Group, Research Professors Funding Committee. KH is co-investigator on the grant provided by UKRI/NIHR, Grant number NIHR135366 (subcontract from University of Oxford to Cardiff University). KH received a grant from AstraZeneca to support a trial of Evusheld for the prevention of COVID in high-risk individuals (to Cardiff University). KH is an independent member of the IDMC for the OCTAVE-DUO trial of vaccines for COVID in high-risk individuals (unpaid). DML has received grants/contracts from LifeArc, Medical Research Council, Bristol Myers Squibb and Blood Cancer UK. DML received personal fees/honoraria for a lecture from Biotest UK, for an educational video from Gilead and for a ‘round table’ discussion with Merck. SP is co-investigator on the grant provided by UKRI/NIHR, Grant number NIHR135366. DR has received consulting fees from OMASS therapeutics. DR has a leadership/fiduciary role in the Heal-COVID trial TMG. BRS reports grant money paid to his employer (Berry Consultants, LLC) from The University of Oxford, from the Sponsor’s grant from the UKRI/NIHR, per the statistical design and analyses for the PANORAMIC trial. GH reports that the NIHR funded this study. ML reports funding directly from the PANORAMIC trial (NIHR). ML reports being a RAPIS-TEST (NIHR EME) DMC member. JM reports that this is part of his consulting work for Berry Consultants. SK reports research funding from GSK, ViiV Healthcare, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Vir and Merck unrelated to this work. SK reports speaker’s fees from ViiV Healthcare and participation on ViiV Healthcare, Pfizer advisory boards. SK reports receiving donation of drugs for clinical studies from ViiV Healthcare, Toyama and GSK. JFS reports receiving research grants from MRC (MR/X004724/1), Wellcome, NIHR, DNDi, Gates and MRC (MR/W015560/1) paid to his institution. JFS reports receiving Pharmacometric consultancy fees from Adrenomed Ltd paid to his institution. JFS reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring board/Advisory Board for GSK Sotrovimab paediatric programme. MIA reports receiving grants from BTRU – GEMS, Janssen – Cartography, Pfizer – Myst, Prenetics, Dunhill Medical Trust, BMA Trust – Kathleen Harper Fund and Antibiotic Research UK – all paid to the institution. MIA reports receiving consultancy fees from Prenetics and OxDx. MIA reports a planned patent for Ramanomics. MIA reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring board/Advisory Board for Prenetics. MIA has an unpaid leadership/fiduciary role in the E3 Initiative. NPBT reports his current affiliations with RCGP and NIHR TVSM. NPBT reports a payment for a single episode of participation on the MSD advisory board in July 2021, prior to any knowledge or planning of this trial. OvH reports receiving an NIHR Development and Skills Personal Award. OvH reports receiving consulting fees for MINDGAP BV, with the fees paid to Oxford University lnnovation Limited. OvH reports unpaid participation on a Data Safety Monitoring board/Advisory Board for The CHIldren with COugh Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (CHICO). OvH has an unpaid leadership/fiduciary role in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. CB reports full employment with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. AU reports receiving consulting fees and payment/honoraria from Merck/MSD and Gilead Sciences. RH reports receiving expenses reimbursed for talks on COVID monoclonal antibodies. PL reports support from the NIHR for the grant to do the PANORAMIC study. NF reports receiving consulting fees from Abbott Diagnostics and GSK, a presentation fee from Abbott Diagnostics, and has stocks in Synairgen PLC., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population., Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir., Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from October, 2017, to March, 2022, and reports lecture fees from Gilead and fees for participation on an advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche. KH is a member of the Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Funding Strategy Group, and Research Professors Funding Committee at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), received a grant from AstraZeneca (paid to their institution) to support a trial of Evusheld for the prevention of COVID-19 in high-risk individuals, and is an independent member of the independent data monitoring committee for the OCTAVE-DUO trial of vaccines in individuals at high risk of COVID-19. DML has received grants or contracts from LifeArc, the UK Medical Research Council, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and Blood Cancer UK, personal fees or honoraria from Biotest UK, Gilead, and Merck, consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to their institution), and conference support from Octapharma. DBR has received consulting fees from OMASS Therapeutics and has a leadership and fiduciary role in the Heal-COVID trial TMG. BRS, JM, MAD, CTS, NSB, and MF report grant money paid to their employer from the University of Oxford for the statistical design and analyses of the PANORAMIC trial. JM has also participated on data and safety monitoring boards as part of his employment with Berry Consultants. ML is a member of the data monitoring and ethics committee of RAPIS-TEST (NIHR efficacy and mechanism evaluation). SK reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Vir, Merck, the UK Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all paid to his institution), speaker's honoraria from ViiV, and donations of drugs for clinical studies from ViiV Healthcare, Toyama, and GlaxoSmithKline. JFS has participated on a data safety monitoring board for GlaxoSmithKline. MA has received grants from the Blood and Transplant Research Unit, Janssen, Pfizer, Prenetics, Dunhill Medical Trust, the BMA Trust (Kathleen Harper Fund), and Antibiotic Research UK (all of which were paid to their institution), and consultancy fees from Prenetics and OxDx. MA reports a planned patent for Ramanomics, has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Prenetics, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the E3 Initiative. NPBT has received payment for participation on an advisory board from MSD (before any knowledge or planning of this trial). OvH has received consulting fees from MindGap (fees paid to Oxford University lnnovation), has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the CHICO trial, and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role in the British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. AU has received consulting fees and payment or honoraria from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead. NF has received consulting fees from Abbott Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline, is a member of the PRINCIPLE trial data safety monitoring board and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment General Funding Committee, and has stocks in Synairgen. JB has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline (paid to her institution). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: It remains unclear to what extent reductions in urgent referrals for suspected cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were the result of fewer patients attending primary care compared to GPs referring fewer patients., Methods: Cohort study including electronic health records data from 8,192,069 patients from 663 English practices. Weekly consultation rates, cumulative consultations and referrals were calculated for 28 clinical features from the NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Clinical feature consultation rate ratios (CRR) and urgent referral rate ratios (RRR) compared time periods in 2020 with 2019., Findings: Consultations for cancer clinical features decreased by 24.19% (95% CI: 24.04-24.34%) between 2019 and 2020, particularly in the 6-12 weeks following the first national lockdown. Urgent referrals for clinical features decreased by 10.47% (95% CI: 9.82-11.12%) between 2019 and 2020. Overall, once patients consulted with primary care, GPs urgently referred a similar or greater proportion of patients compared to previous years., Conclusion: Due to the significant fall in patients consulting with clinical features of cancer there was a lower than expected number of urgent referrals in 2020. Sustained efforts should be made throughout the pandemic to encourage the public to consult their GP with cancer clinical features., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community., Methods: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing., Findings: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19)., Interpretation: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications., Funding: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MB reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GlaxoSmithKline; and is a member of advisory boards for Albus Health and ProAxsis, outside the submitted work. DR reports being a former employee of GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. BRS, NB, MAD, MF, and CS report grants from The University of Oxford, for the University of Oxford's grant from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and for statistical design and analyses for the PRINCIPLE trial during the conduct of the study. SdL is Director of the Oxford–Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre and reports that through his university he has had grants outside the submitted work from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takeda for vaccine-related research, and membership of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Seqirus. MIA reports grants and personal fees from Prenetics outside the submitted work. PJB reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and personal fees from Teva and Covis, during the conduct of the study. REKR reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi UK, and GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. SR reports grants and non-financial support from Oxford respiratory NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), during the conduct of the study; and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and personal fees from the Australian Government Research Training Program, outside the submitted work. FDRH and CCB report grants from UK Research and Innovation, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes., Methods: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m 2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580., Findings: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group., Interpretation: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BRS, MAD, CS, MF, and NB report grants from University of Oxford, for the sponsor's grant from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), for statistical design and analyses for the trial, during the conduct of the study. RD reports grants and personal fees from Synairgen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Boehringer, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and grants from the Innovative Medicines Initiative, the UK Medical Research Council, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. FDRH reports grants from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), during the conduct of the study. OVH reports grants from UKRI, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications., Methods and Analysis: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN86534580., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)