Social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19.

Introduction: Vaccines and drugs for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 require robust evidence generated from clinical trials before they can be used. Decisions on how to apply non-pharmaceutical interventions such as quarantine, self-isolation, social distancing and travel restrictions should also be based on evidence. There are some experiential and mathematical modelling data for these interventions, but there is a lack of data on the social, ethical and behavioural aspects of these interventions in the literature. Therefore, our study aims to produce evidence to inform (non-pharmaceutical) interventions such as communications, quarantine, self-isolation, social distancing, travel restrictions and other public health measures for the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The study will be conducted in the United Kingdom, Italy, Malaysia, Slovenia and Thailand. We propose to conduct 600-1000 quantitative surveys and 25-35 qualitative interviews per country. Data collection will follow the following four themes: (1) Quarantine and self-isolation (2) social distancing and travel restrictions (3) wellbeing and mental health (4) information, misinformation and rumours. In light of limitations of travel and holding in-person meetings, we will primarily use online/remote methods for collecting data. Study participants will be adults who have provided informed consent from different demographic, socio-economic and risk groups. Discussion: At the time of the inception of the study, United Kingdom, Italy, Malaysia, Slovenia and Thailand have initiated strict public health measures and varying degrees of "lockdowns" to curb the pandemic. These public health measures will change in the coming weeks and months depending on the number of cases of COVID-19 in the respective countries. The data generated from our study could inform these strategies in real time

Study protocol: an open-label individually randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine prophylaxis for malaria among forest goers in Cambodia

Introduction In the Greater Mekong Subregion, adults are at highest risk for malaria. The most relevant disease vectors bite during daytime and outdoors which makes forest work a high-risk activity for malaria. The absence of effective vector control strategies and limited periods of exposure during forest visits suggest that chemoprophylaxis could be an appropriate strategy to protect forest goers against malaria. Methods and analysis The protocol describes an open-label randomised controlled trial of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) versus multivitamin as prophylaxis against malaria among forest goers aged 16–65 years in rural northeast Cambodia. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of the artemisinin combination therapy AL versus a multivitamin preparation as defined by the 28-day PCR parasite positivity rate and incidence of confirmed clinical malaria of any species. The sample size is 2200 patient-episodes of duration 1 month in each arm. The duration of follow-up and prophylaxis for each participant is 1, 2 or 3 consecutive 28-day periods, followed by a further 28 days of post-exposure prophylaxis, depending on whether they continue to visit the forest. Analysis will be done both by intention to treat and per protocol. Ethics and dissemination All participants will provide written, informed consent. Ethical approval was obtained from the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee and the Cambodia National Ethics Committee for Health Research. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed open access publication together with open data

Antimalarial Chemoprophylaxis for Forest Goers in Southeast Asia: An Open-Label, Individually Randomised Controlled Trial

Summary Background Malaria in the eastern Greater Mekong subregion has declined to historic lows. Countries in the Greater Mekong subregion are accelerating malaria elimination in the context of increasing antimalarial drug resistance. Infections are now increasingly concentrated in remote, forested foci. No intervention has yet shown satisfactory efficacy against forest-acquired malaria. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of malaria chemoprophylaxis among forest goers in Cambodia. Methods We conducted an open-label, individually randomized controlled trial in Cambodia, which recruited participants aged 16–65 years staying overnight in forests. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, a 3-day course of twice-daily artemether–lumefantrine followed by the same daily dosing once a week while travelling in the forest and for a further 4 weeks after leaving the forest (four tablets per dose; 20 mg of artemether and 120 mg of lumefantrine per tablet), or a multivitamin with no antimalarial activity. Allocations were done according to a computer-generated randomization schedule, and randomization was in permuted blocks of size ten and stratified by village. Investigators and participants were not masked to drug allocation, but laboratory investigations were done without knowledge of allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of either clinical malaria with any Plasmodium species within 1–28, 29–56, or 57–84 days, or subclinical infection detected by PCR on days 28, 56, or 84 using complete-case analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to study drug was assessed primarily by self-reporting during follow-up visits. Adverse events were assessed in the intention-to-treat population as a secondary endpoint from self-reporting at any time, plus a physical examination and symptom questionnaire at follow-up. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04041973) and is complete. Findings Between March 11 and November 20, 2020, 1,480 individuals were enrolled, of whom 738 were randomly assigned to artemether–lumefantrine and 742 to the multivitamin. 713 participants in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 714 in the multivitamin group had a PCR result or confirmed clinical malaria by rapid diagnostic test during follow-up. During follow-up, 19 (3%, 95% CI 2–4) of 713 participants had parasitaemia or clinical malaria in the artemether– lumefantrine group and 123 (17%, 15–20) of 714 in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 15%, 95% CI 12–18; p \u3c 0·0001). During follow-up, there were 166 malaria episodes caused by Plasmodium vivax, 14 by Plasmodium falciparum, and five with other or mixed species infections. The numbers of participants with P. vivax were 18 (3%, 95% CI 2–4) in the artemether–lumefantrine group versus 112 (16%, 13–19) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 13%, 95% CI 10–16; p \u3c 0.0001). The numbers of participants with P. falciparum were two (0.3%, 95% CI 0.03–1.01) in the artemether–lumefantrine group versus 12 (1·7%, 0.9–2.9) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 1·4%, 95% CI 0.4–2·4; p = 0.013). Overall reported adherence to the full course of medication was 97% (95% CI 96–98; 1,797 completed courses out of 1,854 courses started) in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 98% (97–98; 1,842 completed courses in 1,885 courses started) in the multivitamin group. Overall prevalence of adverse events was 1.9% (355 events in 18,806 doses) in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 1.1% (207 events in 19,132 doses) in the multivitamin group (p \u3c 0.0001). Interpretation Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether–lumefantrine was acceptable and well tolerated and substantially reduced the risk of malaria. Malaria chemoprophylaxis among high-risk groups such as forest workers could be a valuable tool for accelerating elimination in the Greater Mekong subregion

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar : an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention

Pharmacokinetics of single low dose primaquine in Ugandan and Congolese children with falciparum malaria

Background: There are no pharmacokinetic data of single low dose primaquine (SLDPQ) as transmission blocking in African children with acute Plasmodium falciparum and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd). Methods: Primaquine pharmacokinetics of age-dosed SLDPQ (shown previously to be gametocytocidal with similar tolerability as placebo) were characterised in falciparum-infected Ugandan and Congolese children aged 6 months to 11 years, treated on admission with standard 3-day dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine or artemether-lumefantrine plus SLDPQ: 6 m–<1 y: 1.25 mg, 1–5 y: 2.5 mg, 6–9 y: 5 mg, 10–11 y: 7.5 mg. LC-MS/MS-measured plasma primaquine and carboxyprimaquine (baseline, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 h) were analysed by noncompartmental analysis. Multivariable linear regression modelled associations between covariates, including cytochrome-P450 2D6 metaboliser status, and outcomes. Findings: 258 children (median age 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 3–7]) were sampled; 8 (3.1%) with early vomiting were excluded. Primaquine doses of 0.10–0.40 (median 0.21, IQR 0.16–0.25) mg base/kg resulted in primaquine maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) of 2.3–447 (median 103.0, IQR 72.1–140.0) ng/mL between 1.0 and 8.0 (median 2) hours (Tmax) and median areas under the drug concentration curves (AUC0-last) 730.2 (6 m–<1 y, n = 12), 582.8 (1–5 y, n = 126), 871.1 (6–9 y, n = 80), and 931.0 (10–11 y, n = 32) ng∗h/mL. Median elimination half-live (T½) was 4.7 (IQR 3.8–5.6) hours. Primaquine clearance/kg peaked at 18 months, plateauing at 4 y. Increasing CYP2D6 metaboliser activity score [poor (3/250), intermediate (52/250), normal (150/250), ultrarapid (5/250), indeterminate (40/250)] and baseline haemoglobin were significantly associated with a lower primaquine AUC0-last,which increased with increasing mg/kg dose and age but was independent of the artemisinin treatment used. Interpretation: Age-dosed SLDPQ resulted in variable primaquine exposure that depended on bodyweight-adjusted dose, age, baseline haemoglobin and CYP2D6 metaboliser status, but not on dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine or artemether-lumefantrine. These data support age-dosed SLDPQ for transmission blocking in sub-Saharan Africa. Funding: This work was cofunded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and UK Aid through the Global Health Trials (grant reference MR/P006973/1). The funders had no role in the study design, execution, and analysis and decisions regarding publication

Economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and public health measures: results from an anonymous online survey in Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of COVID-19 and public health measures on different social groups, we conducted a mixed-methods study in five countries ('SEBCOV-social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19'). Here, we report the results of the online survey. STUDY DESIGN AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall, 5058 respondents from Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia completed the self-administered survey between May and June 2020. Poststratification weighting was applied, and associations between categorical variables assessed. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical data. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Pearson's χ2 test. Data were analysed in Stata 15.0 RESULTS: Among the five countries, Thai respondents reported having been most, and Slovenian respondents least, affected economically. The following factors were associated with greater negative economic impacts: being 18-24 years or 65 years or older; lower education levels; larger households; having children under 18 in the household and and having flexible/no income. Regarding social impact, respondents expressed most concern about their social life, physical health, mental health and well-being.There were large differences between countries in terms of voluntary behavioural change, and in compliance and agreement with COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, self-reported compliance was higher among respondents who self-reported a high understanding of COVID-19. UK respondents felt able to cope the longest and Thai respondents the shortest with only going out for essential needs or work. Many respondents reported seeing news perceived to be fake, the proportion varying between countries, with education level and self-reported levels of understanding of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that COVID-19 and public health measures have uneven economic and social impacts on people from different countries and social groups. Understanding the factors associated with these impacts can help to inform future public health interventions and mitigate their negative consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20200401002

Defining the hidden burden of disease in rural communities in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Thailand: a cross-sectional household health survey protocol

Introduction In low-income and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia, the burden of diseases among rural population remains poorly understood, posing a challenge for effective healthcare prioritisation and resource allocation. Addressing this knowledge gap, the South and Southeast Asia Community-based Trials Network (SEACTN) will undertake a survey that aims to determine the prevalence of a wide range of non-communicable and communicable diseases, as one of the key initiatives of its first project-the Rural Febrile Illness project (RFI). This survey, alongside other RFI studies that explore fever aetiology, leading causes of mortality, and establishing village and health facility maps and profiles, will provide an updated epidemiological background of the rural areas where the network is operational. Methods and analysis During 2022-2023, a cross-sectional household survey will be conducted across three SEACTN sites in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Thailand. Using a two-stage cluster-sampling approach, we will employ a probability-proportional-to-size sample method for village, and a simple random sample for household, selection, enrolling all members from the selected households. Approximately 1500 participants will be enrolled per country. Participants will undergo questionnaire interview, physical examination and haemoglobin point-of-care testing. Blood samples will be collected and sent to central laboratories to test for chronic and acute infections, and biomarkers associated with cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Prevalences will be presented as an overall estimate by country, and stratified and compared across sites and participants' sociodemographic characteristics. Associations between disease status, risk factors and other characteristics will be explored. Ethics and dissemination This study protocol has been approved by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, National Research Ethics Committee of Bangladesh Medical Research Council, the Cambodian National Ethics Committee for Health Research, the Chiang Rai Provincial Public Health Research Ethical Committee. The results will be disseminated via the local health authorities and partners, peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT05389540

Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis for forest goers in southeast Asia: an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundMalaria in the eastern Greater Mekong subregion has declined to historic lows. Countries in the Greater Mekong subregion are accelerating malaria elimination in the context of increasing antimalarial drug resistance. Infections are now increasingly concentrated in remote, forested foci. No intervention has yet shown satisfactory efficacy against forest-acquired malaria. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of malaria chemoprophylaxis among forest goers in Cambodia. MethodsWe conducted an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial in Cambodia, which recruited participants aged 16-65 years staying overnight in forests. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, a 3-day course of twice-daily artemether-lumefantrine followed by the same daily dosing once a week while travelling in the forest and for a further 4 weeks after leaving the forest (four tablets per dose; 20 mg of artemether and 120 mg of lumefantrine per tablet), or a multivitamin with no antimalarial activity. Allocations were done according to a computer-generated randomisation schedule, and randomisation was in permuted blocks of size ten and stratified by village. Investigators and participants were not masked to drug allocation, but laboratory investigations were done without knowledge of allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of either clinical malaria with any Plasmodium species within 1-28, 29-56, or 57-84 days, or subclinical infection detected by PCR on days 28, 56, or 84 using complete-case analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to study drug was assessed primarily by self-reporting during follow-up visits. Adverse events were assessed in the intention-to-treat population as a secondary endpoint from self-reporting at any time, plus a physical examination and symptom questionnaire at follow-up. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04041973) and is complete. FindingsBetween March 11 and Nov 20, 2020, 1480 individuals were enrolled, of whom 738 were randomly assigned to artemether-lumefantrine and 742 to the multivitamin. 713 participants in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 714 in the multivitamin group had a PCR result or confirmed clinical malaria by rapid diagnostic test during follow-up. During follow-up, 19 (3%, 95% CI 2-4) of 713 participants had parasitaemia or clinical malaria in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 123 (17%, 15-20) of 714 in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 15%, 95% CI 12-18; p Interpretation Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether-lumefantrine was acceptable and well tolerated and substantially reduced the risk of malaria. Malaria chemoprophylaxis among high-risk groups such as forest workers could be a valuable tool for accelerating elimination in the Greater Mekong subregion

Defining the burden of febrile illness in rural South and Southeast Asia: an open letter to announce the launch of the Rural Febrile Illness project.

In rural areas of South and Southeast Asia malaria is declining but febrile illnesses still account for substantial morbidity and mortality. Village health workers (VHWs) are often the first point of contact with the formal health system, and for patients with febrile illnesses they can provide early diagnosis and treatment of malaria. However, for the majority of febrile patients, VHWs lack the training, support and resources to provide further care. Consequently, treatable bacterial illnesses are missed, antibiotics are overused and poorly targeted, and patient attendance wanes along with declining malaria. This announces the start of a new initiative, the Rural Febrile Illness (RFI) project, the first in a series of projects to be implemented as part of the South and Southeast Asian Community-based Trials Network (SEACTN) research programme. This multi-country, multi-site project will begin in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar and will define the epidemiological baseline of febrile illness in five remote and underserved areas of Asia where malaria endemicity is declining and access to health services is limited. The RFI project aims to determine the incidence, causes and outcomes of febrile illness; understand the opportunities, barriers and appetite for adjustment of the role of VHWs to include management of non-malarial febrile illnesses; and establish a network of community healthcare providers and facilities capable of implementing interventions designed to triage, diagnose and treat patients presenting with febrile illnesses within these communities in the future. [Abstract copyright: Copyright: © 2021 Chandna A et al.

Triple therapy with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine alone for artemisinin-resistant, uncomplicated falciparum malaria: an open-label, randomised, multicentre trial

Background: Late treatment failures after artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for falciparum malaria have increased in the Greater Mekong subregion in southeast Asia. Addition of amodiaquine to artemether-lumefantrine could provide an efficacious treatment for multidrug-resistant infections. Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomised trial at five hospitals or health centres in three locations (western Cambodia, eastern Cambodia, and Vietnam). Eligible participants were male and female patients aged 2-65 years with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in blocks of eight to 12) to either artemether-lumefantrine alone (dosed according to WHO guidelines) or artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine (10 mg base per kg/day), both given orally as six doses over 3 days. All received a single dose of primaquine (0·25 mg/kg) 24 h after the start of study treatment to limit transmission of the parasite. Parasites were genotyped, identifying artemisinin resistance. The primary outcome was Kaplan-Meier 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy against recrudescence of the original parasite, assessed by intent-to-treat. Safety was a secondary outcome. This completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03355664). Findings: Between March 18, 2018, and Jan 30, 2020, 310 patients received randomly allocated treatment; 154 received artemether-lumefantrine alone and 156 received artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine. Parasites from 305 of these patients were genotyped. 42-day PCR-corrected treatment efficacy was noted in 151 (97%, 95% CI 92-99) of 156 patients with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 146 (95%, 89-97) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone; hazard ratio (HR) for recrudescence 0·6 (95% CI 0·2-1·9, p=0·38). Of the 13 recrudescences, 12 were in 174 (57%) of 305 infections with pfkelch13 mutations indicating artemisinin resistance, for which 42-day efficacy was noted in 89 (96%) of 93 infections with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 73 (90%) of 81 infections with artemether-lumefantrine alone; HR for recrudescence 0·44 (95% CI 0·14-1·40, p=0·17). Artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine was generally well tolerated, but the number of mild (grade 1-2) adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, was greater in this group compared with artemether-lumefantrine alone (vomiting, 12 [8%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·03; and nausea, 11 [7%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·05). Early vomiting within 1 h of treatment, requiring retreatment, occurred in no patients of 154 with artemether-lumefantrine alone versus five (3%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·06. Bradycardia (≤54 beats/min) of any grade was noted in 59 (38%) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone and 95 (61%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·0001. Interpretation: Artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine provides an alternative to artemether-lumefantrine alone as first-line treatment for multidrug-resistant P falciparum malaria in the Greater Mekong subregion, and could prolong the therapeutic lifetime of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-endemic populations