Dataset Information

Implementation of serological and molecular tools to inform COVID-19 patient management: protocol for the GENCOV prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results.

Methods and analysis

A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

SUBMITTER: Taher J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNoroviruses are the leading cause of viral acute gastroenteritis affecting all age groups. Since 2014, the previous rarely reported GII.P17-GII.17 and recombinant GII.P16-GII.2 norovirus emerged, replacing GII.4 predominant genotype, causing increased outbreaks in China and other countries. Meanwhile, GII.4/2012 Sydney strain has re-emerged as the dominant variant in many places in 2015-2018. The role of herd immunity as the driving force during these new emerging or re-emerging noroviruses is poorly defined. Serological surveillance studies on community-based prospective cohort on norovirus are highly needed.Methods and analysesThis study will include 1000 out of 9798 participants aged 18 years and above from Caofeidian district, Tangshan city, northern China. Baseline data on sociodemographic characteristics and blood samples were collected in 2013-2014. Blood collection will be replicated annually throughout the cohort until 2023. Saliva samples were also collected in 2016. The seroprevalence and seroincidence of blockade antibodies against norovirus genotypes of GII.P17-GII.17, GII.P16-GII.2, the re-emerged GII.4/2012 and potential novel pandemic variants will be evaluated by ELISA. Associations between genotype blockade antibodies and sociodemographic factors and human histo-blood group antigens will be evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. The dynamics of herd immunity duration will be estimated in this longitudinal surveillance.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Ethical Committees of the Staff Hospital of Jidong oil-field of China National Petroleum Corporation. This study will provide insight into the seroprevalence and seroincidence of noroviruses, and their relationships with sociodemographic characteristics and genetic susceptibility. It will also explain herd immunity of the emerged and re-emerged genotypes or variants. The study will further enable an understanding of the mechanism driving the replacement of norovirus genotypes. Research findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings.

Project description:BackgroundPost-operative pain is unpleasant for patients and may worsen surgical recovery. Peri-operative multimodal analgesia has been used for many years; however, its efficacy still needs improvement. In the present study, a thorough peri-operative pain counseling and stratified management program based on risk assessment was implemented, with the goal of improving post-operative analgesia and patient satisfaction.MethodsThis prospective, controlled, pilot study included 361 patients who underwent elective surgery. Of these 361 patients, 187 received peri-operative pain risk assessment and stratified analgesia and counseling (stratified analgesia group), while 174 received conventional multimodal analgesia (conventional group). The two groups were compared regarding the post-operative pain intensity, rescue analgesia administration, post-operative quality of recovery as assessed via the quality of recovery 40 questionnaire, total dosage of peri-operative opioids, analgesic satisfaction, and analgesic costs.ResultsCompared with the conventional group, the stratified analgesia group reported decreased pain intensity during motion at 24 h post-operatively and required lower dosages of rescue analgesia (P = 0.03). The total quality of recovery 40 questionnaire score and the scores for physical wellbeing and pain were significantly better in the stratified analgesia group than the conventional group (P = 0.04); the stratified analgesia group also reported better scores for analgesic satisfaction (P = 0.03) and received lower dosages of opioids (P = 0.03). Analgesic costs were lower in the stratified analgesia group than the conventional group; the cost-effective ratio was 109 in the conventional group and 62 in the stratified analgesia group.ConclusionsThe analgesic efficacy was improved by the implementation of stratified analgesia based on surgical pain risk assessment and counseling. This stratified analgesia protocol increased the patients' analgesic satisfaction and improved the quality of recovery without increasing healthcare costs. The present findings may help improve the efficacy of peri-operative multimodal analgesia in clinical practice.Clinical trial registryNCT02728973; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02728973?term=NCT02728973&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundQuantitative systematic reviews have identified clinical artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools with adequate performance for real-world implementation. To our knowledge, no published report or protocol synthesizes the full breadth of stakeholder perspectives. The absence of such a rigorous foundation perpetuates the "AI chasm," which continues to delay patient benefit.ObjectiveThe aim of this research is to synthesize stakeholder perspectives of computerized clinical decision support tools in any health care setting. Synthesized findings will inform future research and the implementation of AI into health care services.MethodsThe search strategy will use MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), ACM Digital Library, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). Following deduplication, title, abstract, and full text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers with a third topic expert arbitrating. The quality of included studies will be appraised to support interpretation. Best-fit framework synthesis will be performed, with line-by-line coding completed by 2 independent reviewers. Where appropriate, these findings will be assigned to 1 of 22 a priori themes defined by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework. New domains will be inductively generated for outlying findings. The placement of findings within themes will be reviewed iteratively by a study advisory group including patient and lay representatives.ResultsStudy registration was obtained from PROSPERO (CRD42021256005) in May 2021. Final searches were executed in April, and screening is ongoing at the time of writing. Full text data analysis is due to be completed in October 2021. We anticipate that the study will be submitted for open-access publication in late 2021.ConclusionsThis paper describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis aiming to define barriers and facilitators to the implementation of computerized clinical decision support tools from all relevant stakeholders. The results of this study are intended to expedite the delivery of patient benefit from AI-enabled clinical tools.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021256005; https://tinyurl.com/r4x3thvp.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/33145.

Project description:Pharmacogenomics seeks to improve prescribing by reducing drug inefficacy/toxicity. However, views of patients during pharmacogenomic-guided care are largely unknown. We sought to understand the attitudes and perceptions of patients in an institutional implementation project and hypothesized that views would differ on the basis of experience with pharmacogenomic-guided care.Two focus groups were conducted - one group included patients who had previously been subjected to broad pharmacogenomic genotyping with results available to physicians (pharmacogenomic group), whereas the other had not been offered genotyping (traditional care). Five domains were explored: (i) experiences with medications/side effects, (ii) understanding of pharmacogenomics, (iii) impact of pharmacogenomics on relationships with healthcare professionals, (iv) scenarios involving pharmacogenomic-guided prescribing, and (v) responses to pharmacogenomic education materials.Nine pharmacogenomic and 13 traditional care participants were included. Participants in both groups agreed that pharmacogenomics could inform prescribing and help identify problem prescriptions, but expressed concerns over insurance coverage and employment discrimination. Both groups diverged on who should be permitted to access pharmacogenomic results, with some preferring access only for providers with a longstanding relationship, whereas others argued for open access. Notably, traditional care participants showed greater skepticism about how results might be used. Case scenarios and tested educational materials elicited strong desires on the part of patients for physicians to engage participants when considering pharmacogenomic-based prescribing and to utilize shared decision-making.Participants experiencing pharmacogenomic-guided care were more receptive toward pharmacogenomic information being used than traditional care participants. As key stakeholders in implementation, addressing patients' concerns will be important to successfully facilitate clinical dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-physician communication during clinical encounters is essential to ensure quality of care. Many studies have attempted to improve patient-physician communication. Incorporating patient priorities into agenda setting and medical decision-making are fundamental to patient-centered communication. Efficient and scalable approaches are needed to empower patients to speak up and prepare physicians to respond. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) in engaging patients and health care teams has the potential to enhance the integration of patient priorities in clinical encounters. A systematic approach to eliciting and documenting patient priorities before encounters could facilitate effective communication in such encounters.ObjectiveIn this paper, we report the design and implementation of a set of EHR tools built into clinical workflows for facilitating patient-physician joint agenda setting and the documentation of patient concerns in the EHRs for ambulatory encounters.MethodsWe engaged health information technology leaders and users in three health care systems for developing and implementing a set of EHR tools. The goal of these tools is to standardize the elicitation of patient priorities by using a previsit "patient important issue" questionnaire distributed through the patient portal to the EHR. We built additional EHR documentation tools to facilitate patient-staff communication when the staff records the vital signs and the reason for the visit in the EHR while in the examination room, with a simple transmission method for physicians to incorporate patient concerns in EHR notes.ResultsThe study is ongoing. The anticipated completion date for survey data collection is November 2021. A total of 34,037 primary care patients from three health systems (n=26,441; n=5136; and n=2460 separately recruited from each system) used the previsit patient important issue questionnaire in 2020. The adoption of the digital previsit questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic was much higher in one health care system because it expanded the use of the questionnaire from physicians participating in trials to all primary care providers midway through the year. It also required the use of this previsit questionnaire for eCheck-ins, which are required for telehealth encounters. Physicians and staff suggested anecdotally that this questionnaire helped patient-clinician communication, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsEHR tools have the potential to facilitate the integration of patient priorities into agenda setting and documentation in real-world primary care practices. Early results suggest the feasibility and acceptability of such digital tools in three health systems. EHR tools can support patient engagement and clinicians' work during in-person and telehealth visits. They could potentially exert a sustained influence on patient and clinician communication behaviors in contrast to prior ad hoc educational efforts targeting patients or clinicians.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385512.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/30431.

Project description:IntroductionTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important as certain questions could only be answered by the patient himself. PROMs help to get a better understanding what is meaningful to a patient and directly affects daily functioning. To move beyond traditional measures, we are interested in what matters to patients and developed this project. The aim of this article is to provide the protocol for our study collecting PROMs in daily medical practice from patients who undergo knee arthroplasty.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, observational, prospective cohort study. We will recruit patients scheduled for a knee arthroplasty in our medical office, situated in a private clinic. After signed informed consent, patients complete self-reported questionnaires before the surgery, after 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. We will use the following PROMs: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score, EuroQol five dimensions and satisfaction. Additionally, the surgeon will complete the objective Knee Society Score. Administration of the questionnaires will be electronically or paper-based. We will assess differences between preoperative and postoperative data with paired t-test for continuous variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for categorical variables. To assess subgroup differences, we will use unpaired t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables. To assess possible presence of bias, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee in Basel, Switzerland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. We will disseminate the results of the study through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and presentations to relevant stakeholders through appropriate channels.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Reducing variability is integral in quality management. As part of the ongoing Encephaloduroarteriosynangiosis Revascularisation for Symptomatic Intracranial Arterial Stenosis (ERSIAS) trial, we developed a strict anaesthesia protocol to minimise fluctuations in patient parameters affecting cerebral perfusion. We hypothesise that this protocol reduces the intraoperative variability of targeted monitored parameters compared to standard management. DESIGN:Prospective cohort study of patients undergoing encephaloduroarteriosynangiosis surgery versus standard neurovascular interventions. Patients with ERSIAS had strict perioperative management that included normocapnia and intentional hypertension. Control patients received regular anaesthetic standard of care. Minute-by-minute intraoperative vitals were electronically collected. Heterogeneity of variance tests were used to compare variance across groups. Mixed-model regression analysis was performed to establish the effects of treatment group on the monitored parameters. SETTING:Tertiary care centre. PARTICIPANTS:24 participants: 12 cases (53.8 years ± 16.7 years; 10 females) and 12 controls (51.3 years ± 15.2 years; 10 females). Adults aged 30-80 years, with transient ischaemic attack or non-disabling stroke (modified Rankin Scale <3) attributed to 70-99% intracranial stenosis of the carotid or middle cerebral artery, were considered for enrolment. Controls were matched according to age, gender and history of neurovascular intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Variability of heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure and end tidal CO2 (ETCO2) throughout surgical duration. RESULTS:There were significant reductions in the intraoperative MAP SD (4.26 vs 10.23 mm Hg; p=0.007) and ETCO2 SD (0.94 vs 1.26 mm Hg; p=0.05) between the ERSIAS and control groups. Median MAP and ETCO2 in the ERSIAS group were higher (98 mm Hg, IQR 23 vs 75 mm Hg, IQR 15; p<0.001, and 38 mm Hg, IQR 4 vs 32 mm Hg, IQR 3; p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The ERSIAS anaesthesia protocol successfully reduced intraoperative fluctuations of MAP and ETCO2. The protocol also achieved normocarbia and the intended hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01819597; Pre-results.