A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016

A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Association between Clean Cooking Technologies and Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Interventions implementing clean fuels to mitigate household air pollution in low- and middle-income countries have focused on environmental and health outcomes, but few have evaluated time savings. We performed a systematic review, searching for studies of clean fuel interventions that measured time use. A total of 868 manuscripts were identified that met the search criteria, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Both were cross-sectional and were conducted in rural India. The first surveyed the female head of household (141 using biogas and 58 using biomass) and reported 1.2 h saved per day collecting fuel and 0.7 h saved cooking, resulting in a combined 28.9 days saved over an entire year. The second surveyed the head of household (37 using biogas and 68 using biomass, 13% female) and reported 1.5 h saved per day collecting fuel, or 22.8 days saved over a year. Based on these time savings, we estimated that clean fuel use could result in a 3.8% or 4.7% increase in daily income, respectively, not including time or costs for fuel procurement. Clean fuel interventions could save users time and money. Few studies have evaluated this potential benefit, suggesting that prospective studies or randomized controlled trials are needed to adequately measure gains

Effects of a household air pollution intervention using liquefied petroleum gas stoves, continuous fuel distribution and behavioural messaging on dietary and sodium intake of adult women in Puno, Peru: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objective: Household air pollution (HAP) is a widespread environmental exposure worldwide. While several cleaner fuel interventions have been implemented to reduce personal exposures to HAP, it is unclear if cooking with cleaner fuels also affects the choice of meals and dietary intake. Design: Individually randomised, open-label controlled trial of a HAP intervention. We aimed to determine the effect of a HAP intervention on dietary and Na intake. Intervention participants received a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove, continuous fuel delivery and behavioural messaging during 1 year whereas control participants continued with usual cooking practices that involved the use of biomass-burning stoves. Dietary outcomes included energy, energy-adjusted macronutrients and Na intake at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation using 24-h dietary recalls and 24-h urine. We used t-tests to estimate differences between arms in the post-randomisation period. Setting: Rural settings in Puno, Peru. Participants: One hundred women aged 25–64 years. Results: At baseline, control and intervention participants were similar in age (47·4 v. 49·5 years) and had similar daily energy (8894·3 kJ v. 8295·5 kJ), carbohydrate (370·8 g v. 373·3 g) and Na intake (4·9 g v. 4·8 g). One year after randomisation, we did not find differences in average energy intake (9292·4 kJ v. 8788·3 kJ; P = 0·22) or Na intake (4·5 g v. 4·6 g; P = 0·79) between control and intervention participants. Conclusions: Our HAP intervention consisting of an LPG stove, continuous fuel distribution and behavioural messaging did not affect dietary and Na intake in rural Peru

Resources and Geographic Access to Care for Severe Pediatric Pneumonia in Four Resource-limited Settings

Rationale: Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children worldwide. Identifying and appropriately managing severe pneumonia in a timely manner improves outcomes. Little is known about the readiness of healthcare facilities to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in low-resource settings. Objectives: As part of the HAPIN (Household Air Pollution Intervention Network) trial, we sought to identify healthcare facilities that were adequately resourced to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in Jalapa, Guatemala (J-GUA); Puno, Peru (P-PER); Kayonza, Rwanda (K-RWA); and Tamil Nadu, India (T-IND). We conducted a facility-based survey of available infrastructure, staff, equipment, and medical consumables. Facilities were georeferenced, and a road network analysis was performed. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 350 healthcare facilities surveyed, 13% had adequate resources to manage severe pneumonia, 37% had pulse oximeters, and 44% had supplemental oxygen. Mean (±SD) travel time to an adequately resourced facility was 41 ± 19 minutes in J-GUA, 99 ± 64 minutes in P-PER, 40 ± 19 minutes in K-RWA, and 31 ± 19 minutes in T-IND. Expanding pulse oximetry coverage to all facilities reduced travel time by 44% in J-GUA, 29% in P-PER, 29% in K-RWA, and 11% in T-IND (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Most healthcare facilities in low-resource settings of the HAPIN study area were inadequately resourced to care for severe pediatric pneumonia. Early identification of cases and timely referral is paramount. The provision of pulse oximeters to all health facilities may be an effective approach to identify cases earlier and refer them for care and in a timely manner

Ultrasound Core Laboratory for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial: Standardized Training and Image Management for Field Studies Using Portable Ultrasound in Fetal, Lung, and Vascular Evaluations

Ultrasound Core Laboratories (UCL) are used in multicenter trials to assess imaging biomarkers to define robust phenotypes, to reduce imaging variability and to allow blinded independent review with the purpose of optimizing endpoint measurement precision. The Household Air Pollution Intervention Network, a multicountry randomized controlled trial (Guatemala, Peru, India and Rwanda), evaluates the effects of reducing household air pollution on health outcomes. Field studies using portable ultrasound evaluate fetal, lung and vascular imaging endpoints. The objective of this report is to describe administrative methods and training of a centralized clinical research UCL. A comprehensive administrative protocol and training curriculum included standard operating procedures, didactics, practical scanning and written/practical assessments of general ultrasound principles and specific imaging protocols. After initial online training, 18 sonographers (three or four per country and five from the UCL) participated in a 2 wk on-site training program. Written and practical testing evaluated ultrasound topic knowledge and scanning skills, and surveys evaluated the overall course. The UCL developed comprehensive standard operating procedures for image acquisition with a portable ultrasound system, digital image upload to cloud-based storage, off-line analysis and quality control. Pre- and post-training tests showed significant improvements (fetal ultrasound: 71% ± 13% vs. 93% ± 7%, p < 0.0001; vascular lung ultrasound: 60% ± 8% vs. 84% ± 10%, p < 0.0001). Qualitative and quantitative feedback showed high satisfaction with training (mean, 4.9 ± 0.1; scale: 1 = worst, 5 = best). The UCL oversees all stages: training, standardization, performance monitoring, image quality control and consistency of measurements. Sonographers who failed to meet minimum allowable performance were identified for retraining. In conclusion, a UCL was established to ensure accurate and reproducible ultrasound measurements in clinical research. Standardized operating procedures and training are aimed at reducing variability and enhancing measurement precision from study sites, representing a model for use of portable digital ultrasound for multicenter field studies

Facing the Realities of Pragmatic Design Choices in Environmental Health Studies: Experiences from the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial

Objective: Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) investigators tested a complex, non-pharmacological intervention in four low- and middle-income countries as a strategy to mitigate household air pollution and improve health outcomes across the lifespan. Intervention households received a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove, continuous fuel delivery and regular behavioral reinforcements for 18 months, whereas controls were asked to continue with usual cooking practices. While HAPIN was designed as an explanatory trial to test the efficacy of the intervention on four primary outcomes, it introduced several pragmatic aspects in its design and conduct that resemble real-life conditions. We surveyed HAPIN investigators and asked them to rank what aspects of the design and conduct they considered were more pragmatic than explanatory. Methods: We used the revised Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) to survey investigators on the degree of pragmatism in nine domains of trial design and conduct using a five-point Likert rank scale from very explanatory (1) to very pragmatic (5). We invited 103 investigators. Participants were given educational material on PRECIS-2, including presentations, papers and examples that described the use and implementation of PRECIS-2. Results: Thirty-five investigators (mean age 42 years, 51% female) participated in the survey. Overall, only 17% ranked all domains as very explanatory, with an average (±SD) rank of 3.2 ± 1.4 across domains. Fewer than 20% of investigators ranked eligibility, recruitment or setting as very explanatory. In contrast, ≥50% of investigators ranked the trial organization, delivery and adherence of the intervention and follow-up as very/rather explanatory whereas ≤17% ranked them as rather/very pragmatic. Finally, &lt;25% of investigators ranked the relevance of outcomes to participants and analysis as very/rather explanatory whereas ≥50% ranked then as rather/very pragmatic. In-country partners were more likely to rank domains as pragmatic when compared to investigators working in central coordination (average rank 3.2 vs. 2.8, respectively; Wilcoxon rank-sum p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: HAPIN investigators did not consider their efficacy trial to be rather/very explanatory and reported that some aspects of the design and conduct were executed under real-world conditions; however, they also did not consider the trial to be overly pragmatic. Our analysis underscores the importance of using standardized tools such as PRECIS-2 to guide early discussions among investigators in the design of environmental health trials attempting to measure efficacy.</jats:p

Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model

Introduction: Despite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices. Methods: We developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model.&nbsp; Results: The estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to$14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation.&nbsp; Conclusion: In this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation

S4 Data -

(CSV)</p