No abstract

ObjectiveTo establish the reliability and validity of a shortened (10-item) depression scale used among HIV-positive patients enrolled in the Drug Treatment Program in British Columbia, Canada.MethodsThe 10-item CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) was examined among 563 participants who initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) between August 1, 1996 and June 30, 2002. Internal consistency of the scale was measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Using the original CES-D 20 as primary criteria, comparisons were made using the Kappa statistic. Predictive accuracy of CES-D 10 was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values. Factor analysis was also performed to determine if the CES-D 10 contained the same factors of positive and negative affect found in the original development of the CES-D.ResultsThe correlation between the original and the shortened scale is very high (Spearman correlation coefficient  = 0.97 (P<0.001). Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the CES-D 10 were satisfactory (Cronbach α = 0.88). The CES-D 10 showed comparable accuracy to the original CES-D 20 in classifying participants with depressive symptoms (Kappa = 0.82, P<0.001). Sensitivity of CES-D 10 was 91%; specificity was 92%; and positive predictive value was 92%. Factor analysis demonstrates that CES-D 10 contains the same underlying factors of positive and negative affect found in the original development of the CES-D 20.ConclusionThe 10-item CES-D is a comparable tool to measure depressive symptoms among HIV-positive research participants.

No abstract

WHO.

No abstract

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization. Results A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. Conclusions Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424 .)

IMPORTANCEData on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. OBJECTIVE To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil.Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. RESULTSOf 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavirritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 (continued)