Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

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

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

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 (&lt;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

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsPANORAMIC 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.FindingsBetween 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.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in pregnancy:A mixed methods evaluation of a national roll-out in the context of a pandemic

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how English maternity units implemented self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed methods including surveys, anonymised patient data and in-depth interviews with women. SETTING: Maternity units across England. PARTICIPANTS: 45 maternity units completed a survey about the implementation of SMBP (supported by the provision of guidance and blood pressure monitors) during the pandemic, 166 women completed a survey about their experiences of SMBP, and 23 women took part in in-depth interviews. Clinical data from 627 women undertaking SMBP were available from 13 maternity units. RESULTS: SMBP was predominantly used to provide additional BP monitoring for hypertensive or high-risk pregnant women. Overall maternity units and women were positive about its use in terms of reducing the need for additional face-to-face contacts and giving women more control and insight into their own BP. However, there were challenges in setting up SMBP services rapidly and embedding them within existing care pathways, particularly around interpreting readings and managing the provision of monitors. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of maternity units in England commenced a SMBP service for hypertensive or high-risk women from March 2020. There is a need for further research into appropriate care pathways, including guidance around white coat or masked hypertension and the use of SMBP postnatally

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in pregnancy: A mixed methods evaluation of a national roll-out in the context of a pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how English maternity units implemented self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed methods including surveys, anonymised patient data and in-depth interviews with women. SETTING: Maternity units across England. PARTICIPANTS: 45 maternity units completed a survey about the implementation of SMBP (supported by the provision of guidance and blood pressure monitors) during the pandemic, 166 women completed a survey about their experiences of SMBP, and 23 women took part in in-depth interviews. Clinical data from 627 women undertaking SMBP were available from 13 maternity units. RESULTS: SMBP was predominantly used to provide additional BP monitoring for hypertensive or high-risk pregnant women. Overall maternity units and women were positive about its use in terms of reducing the need for additional face-to-face contacts and giving women more control and insight into their own BP. However, there were challenges in setting up SMBP services rapidly and embedding them within existing care pathways, particularly around interpreting readings and managing the provision of monitors. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of maternity units in England commenced a SMBP service for hypertensive or high-risk women from March 2020. There is a need for further research into appropriate care pathways, including guidance around white coat or masked hypertension and the use of SMBP postnatally.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley (ARC-OxTV) and an NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-0614-20005)

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of self-testing for proteinuria during hypertensive pregnancies:The UDIP study

Objective To determine the accuracy of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy. Design Diagnostic accuracy study. Setting Antenatal clinics, maternity assessment units and inpatient wards at three hospital sites. Population or Sample 345 pregnant women. Methods Pregnant women self-tested in-clinic for urinary protein using visually read dipsticks with samples then sent for laboratory estimation of the spot protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) (primary reference test). Secondary index tests included testing by antenatal healthcare professionals and an automated colorimetric reader. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for self-testing (primary index test) along with healthcare professional and colorimetric testing compared to the primary reference test (PCR). Results 335/345 (97%) had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Self-testing had a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.79) and a specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.92) compared to PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of testing by healthcare professionals and the colorimetric reader were similar: sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.64–0.80) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69–0.85), respectively; specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78–0.88), respectively. Conclusion Pregnant women can visually read a dipstick for urinary protein with similar accuracy to antenatal healthcare professionals. Automated colorimetric testing was not significantly different, in contrast to some previous studies. Self-testing has the potential to form part of a self-monitoring regime in pregnancy

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of self-testing for proteinuria during hypertensive pregnancies:The UDIP study

Objective: To determine the accuracy of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy. Design: Diagnostic accuracy study. Setting: Antenatal clinics, maternity assessment units and inpatient wards at three hospital sites. Population or Sample: 345 pregnant women. Methods: Pregnant women self-tested in-clinic for urinary protein using visually read dipsticks with samples then sent for laboratory estimation of the spot protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) (primary reference test). Secondary index tests included testing by antenatal healthcare professionals and an automated colorimetric reader. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for self-testing (primary index test) along with healthcare professional and colorimetric testing compared to the primary reference test (PCR). Results: 335/345 (97%) had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Self-testing had a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.79) and a specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.92) compared to PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of testing by healthcare professionals and the colorimetric reader were similar: sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.64–0.80) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69–0.85), respectively; specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78–0.88), respectively. Conclusion: Pregnant women can visually read a dipstick for urinary protein with similar accuracy to antenatal healthcare professionals. Automated colorimetric testing was not significantly different, in contrast to some previous studies. Self-testing has the potential to form part of a self-monitoring regime in pregnancy.</p

Self-monitoring blood pressure in pregnancy:evaluation of health professional experiences in the BUMP trials

Background The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals’ perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy. Methods Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England. Results Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt SMBP did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Selfmonitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them. Conclusions Despite healthcare professionals’ early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might overmedicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care. <br/