Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020–4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). Results In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1–2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6–1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4–7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6–87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2–2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). Conclusions Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting

Frameworks for implementation, uptake and use of digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations: a scoping review using cardiometabolic disease as a case study

Background: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. Objective: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. Methods: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. Results: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. Conclusions: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies

Frameworks for implementation, uptake, and use of cardiometabolic disease–related digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations : scoping review

Background: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. Objective: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. Methods: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. Results: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. Conclusions: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies

A case of unilateral ptosis following epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

The present case report describes an unreported complication of self limiting unilateral ptosis after uneventful lumbar epidural analgesia followed by anaesthesia for caesarean section

Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020–4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). Results In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1–2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6–1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4–7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6–87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2–2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). Conclusions Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting

Six-year multicenter study on short-term peripheral venous catheters-related bloodstream infection rates in 204 intensive care units of 57 hospitals in 19 cities of India: International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) findings

•We report peripheral venous catheters (PVC)-related BSI rates from 2013 to 2019.•We collected prospective data from 204 ICUs in 57 hospitals in 19 cities of India.•We followed 7,513 ICU patients for 296,893 bed-days and 295,795 PVC-days.•We identified 863 PVC-related BSIs, amounting to a rate of 2.91/1,000 PVC-days. Short-term peripheral venous catheters-related bloodstream infections (PVCR-BSIs) rates have not been systematically studied in developing countries, and data on their incidence by number of device-days are not available. Prospective, surveillance study on PVCR-BSI conducted from September 1, 2013 to May 31, 2019 in 204 intensive care units (ICUs), members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC), from 57 hospitals in 19 cities of India. We applied US INICC definition criteria and reported methods using the INICC Surveillance Online System. We followed 7,513 ICU patients for 296,893 bed-days and 295,795 short term peripheral venous catheter (PVC)-days. We identified 863 PVCR-BSIs, amounting to a rate of 2.91/1,000 PVC-days. Mortality in patients with PVC but without PVCR-BSI was 4.14%, and 11.59% in patients with PVCR-BSI. The length of stay in patients with PVC but without PVCR-BSI was 4.13 days, and 5.9 days in patients with PVCR-BSI. The micro-organism profile showed 68% of gram negative bacteria: Escherichia coli (23%), Klebsiella spp (15%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5%), and others. The predominant gram-positive bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (10%). PVCR-BSI rates found in our ICUs were much higher than rates published from industrialized countries. Infection prevention programs must be implemented to reduce the incidence of PVCR-BSIs

Six-year study on peripheral venous catheter-associated BSI rates in 262 ICUs in eight countries of South-East Asia: International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium findings

Short-term peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates have not been systematically studied in Asian countries, and data on peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections incidence by number of short-term peripheral venous catheter days are not available. Prospective, surveillance study on peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections conducted from 1 September 2013 to 31 May 2019 in 262 intensive care units, members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium, from 78 hospitals in 32 cities of 8 countries in the South-East Asia Region: China, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. For this research, we applied definition and criteria of the CDC NHSN, methodology of the INICC, and software named INICC Surveillance Online System. We followed 83,295 intensive care unit patients for 369,371 bed-days and 376,492 peripheral venous catheter-days. We identified 999 peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections, amounting to a rate of 2.65/1000 peripheral venous catheter-days. Mortality in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.53% and 12.21% in patients with peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The mean length of stay in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.40 days and 7.11 days in patients with peripheral venous catheter and peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The microorganism profile showed 67.1% were Gram-negative bacteria: (22.9%), spp (10.7%), (5.3%), spp. (4.5%), and others (23.7%). The predominant Gram-positive bacteria were (11.4%). Infection prevention programs must be implemented to reduce the incidence of peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections