Cargando…
Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly deter...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9235209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06402-w |
_version_ | 1784736263303069696 |
---|---|
author | Bruce Metadata, Pepa Ainscough, Kate Hatter, Lee Braithwaite, Irene Berry, Lindsay R. Fitzgerald, Mark Hills, Thomas Brickell, Kathy Cosgrave, David Semprini, Alex Morpeth, Susan Berry, Scott Doran, Peter Young, Paul Beasley, Richard Nichol, Alistair |
author_facet | Bruce Metadata, Pepa Ainscough, Kate Hatter, Lee Braithwaite, Irene Berry, Lindsay R. Fitzgerald, Mark Hills, Thomas Brickell, Kathy Cosgrave, David Semprini, Alex Morpeth, Susan Berry, Scott Doran, Peter Young, Paul Beasley, Richard Nichol, Alistair |
author_sort | Bruce Metadata, Pepa |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. METHODS: We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on ‘no effect’. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. DISCUSSION: This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9235209 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92352092022-06-28 Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses Bruce Metadata, Pepa Ainscough, Kate Hatter, Lee Braithwaite, Irene Berry, Lindsay R. Fitzgerald, Mark Hills, Thomas Brickell, Kathy Cosgrave, David Semprini, Alex Morpeth, Susan Berry, Scott Doran, Peter Young, Paul Beasley, Richard Nichol, Alistair Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. METHODS: We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on ‘no effect’. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. DISCUSSION: This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred. BioMed Central 2022-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9235209/ /pubmed/35761370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06402-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Bruce Metadata, Pepa Ainscough, Kate Hatter, Lee Braithwaite, Irene Berry, Lindsay R. Fitzgerald, Mark Hills, Thomas Brickell, Kathy Cosgrave, David Semprini, Alex Morpeth, Susan Berry, Scott Doran, Peter Young, Paul Beasley, Richard Nichol, Alistair Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title | Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title_full | Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title_fullStr | Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title_full_unstemmed | Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title_short | Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses |
title_sort | prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using bayesian analyses |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9235209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06402-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brucemetadatapepa prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT ainscoughkate prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT hatterlee prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT braithwaiteirene prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT berrylindsayr prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT fitzgeraldmark prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT hillsthomas prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT brickellkathy prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT cosgravedavid prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT semprinialex prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT morpethsusan prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT berryscott prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT doranpeter prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT youngpaul prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT beasleyrichard prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses AT nicholalistair prophylaxisinhealthcareworkersduringapandemicamodelforamulticentreinternationalrandomisedcontrolledtrialusingbayesiananalyses |