COVID-19 Clinical Trials and Expanded Access

Online Distance Learning (ODL) is an educational delivery system that helps students to join in an educational opportunity without physically existing in the same setting as the teacher. Online learning is known as the education that takes place over the Internet, often referred to as e-Learning, web-based training (WBT), distance learning, or asynchronous learning. When learners participate in an online learning course at different times, it is known as asynchronous learning. online learning involves the umbrella term for any learning that takes place across distance and not in a traditional classroom. WHO recommends Implement social distancing practices that may include; Staggering the beginning and end of the school day and Use of online/e-learning strategies? The coronavirus pandemic has changed how millions around the globe are educated. new shifts in education approaches could widen equality gaps. As of March 13, the Organization for Economic Co-operation estimated that over 421 million students are affected due to school closures announced or implemented in 39 countries. Most faculties in affected areas are finding stop-gap solutions to continue teaching, but the quality of learning is heavily dependent on the level and quality of digital access. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess Nursing students' perception and achievement regarding unplanned shifting the Traditional Classroom-Based to Online Distance Learning as a result of (COVID-19) social distancing measures. H1: Learning perception is lower for nursing students who learned by unplanned Online Distance Learning (μ1) than for those who learned by Traditional Classroom-Based learning (μ2), (H1: μ1 < μ2). H1: Scholar achievement is greater for nursing students who learned by Traditional Classroom-Based learning (μ1) than for those who learned by unplanned Online Distance Learning (μ2), (H1: μ1 > μ2). A quasi-experimental research design will be utilized in the current study with a comparative approach. A purposive sample of adult male and female bachelor's students of nursing will be asked to participate in the current study. Three tools will be adopted to collect data relevant to the current study. 1. A brief demographic self-administrated questionnaire 2. Students' Learning Perception Questionnaire (SLPQ), 3. Modified McVay's Readiness for Online Learning Questionnaire

The most feared complication of COVID-19 infection is the occurrence of an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that requires ICU admission and prolonged mechanical ventilation in more than 2% of the affected patients. Establishing the correct time to extubate mechanically ventilated patients is a crucial issue in the critical care practice. Delayed extubation has several consequences such as patient's mortality, health-care-related complications, neuropsychological adverse events. The aim of the INVICTUS study is to evaluate whether a CTUS-based MV weaning strategy could reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation of ARDS COVID-19 ICU patients by 72 hours, compared with usual medical care.

The COVID-19 disease has been subject to numerous publications since its emergence. Almost 20% of people suffering from COVID-19 develop severe to critical symptoms and require hospitalization, often in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Respiratory failure is the main reason for admission in ICU of these patients. Therapeutic strategies implemented for the management of critically-ill patients may often lead to short-term muscular and functional alterations resulting in ICU-Acquired Weakness (ICUAW). These lead to long-term disabilities expressing trough dependence and quality of life impairment of survivors. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of life, dependence and survival at one year in patients who survived from COVID-19 in ICU and are admitted in post-ICU setting for difficult weaning purpose. Ancillary studies aim to assess the course of muscle function (atrophy, structural modifications), lung function (loss of aeration) and safety of early mobilization.

Worldwide observational studies indicate a significant prothrombogenic effect associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection with a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), notably life-threatening pulmonary embolism. According to recommendations for acute medical illnesses, all COVID-19 hospitalized patients should be given VTE prophylaxis such as a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). A standard prophylactic dose (eg. Enoxaparin 4000IU once daily) could be insufficient in obese patients and VTE has been reported in patients treated with a standard prophylactic dose. In COVID-19 patients, guidelines from several international societies confirm the existence of an hypercoagulability and the importance of thromboprophylaxis but the "optimal dose is unknown" and comparative studies are needed. In view of these elements, carrying out a trial comparing various therapeutic strategies for the prevention of VTE in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 constitutes a health emergency. Thus, we hypothesize that an increased prophylactic dose of weight-adjusted LMWH would be greater than a lower prophylactic dose of LMWH to reduce the risk of life-threatening VTE in hospitalized patients. The benefit-risk balance of this increase dose will be carefully evaluated because of bleeding complications favored by possible renal / hepatic dysfunctions, drug interactions or invasive procedures in COVID-19 patients. This multicenter randomized (1:1) open-label controlled trial will randomize hospitalized adults with COVID-19 infection to weight-adjusted prophylactic dose vs. lower prophylactic dose of LMWH.

COVID-19 has a big impact on individuals and society as a whole. Especially persons with (multiple) comorbidities such as stroke are affected. The impact of COVID-19 on stroke rehabilitation delivery and stroke patients' functioning is unclear.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of COVID -19 in the cancer patient population. This will be done by looking at the rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in cancer patients receiving cancer therapy, as well as their immune response. This is a sub-study of the U-DEPLOY study: UHN Umbrella Trial Defining Coordinated Approach to Pandemic Trials of COVID-19 and Data Harmonization to Accelerate Discovery. U-DEPLOY helps to facilitate timely conduct of studies across the University Health Network (UHN) and other centers.

Endothelial injury as a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to a dysregulated host inflammatory response and activation of coagulation pathways. Macro- and micro-vascular thrombosis may contribute to morbidity, organ failure, and death. Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin may improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 through anti-thrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral activities of heparins. This pragmatic, Bayesian adaptive randomized controlled trial will determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin (subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin or intravenous unfractionated heparin) versus usual care reduces the need for intubation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The trial uses an adaptive design which was chosen to overcome limitations in available data to inform a priori estimation of event rates and possible effect sizes. The adaptive design also includes response-adaptive randomization based on baseline D-dimer level, probing for differential efficacy across subgroups defined based on initial D-dimer level. This Bayesian adaptive randomized trial will stop at a conclusion 1) when the posterior probability that the proportional odds ratio is greater than 1.0 reaches 99% (definition of benefit); 2) when the posterior probability that the proportional odds ratio is greater than 1.2 is less than 10% (definition of futility) or; 3) when the posterior probability that the proportional odds ratio is less than 1.0 is greater than 90% (definition of harm). The trial will enroll a maximum of 3,000 patients, although in many simulations the trial may require fewer patients. The trial is strategically aligned with the international REMAP-CAP/COVID platform trial to accelerate evidence generation.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic challenges the available hospital capacity, and this will be augmented by absenteeism of healthcare workers (HCW). HCW are at high risk, currently HCW constitute 20% of all the COVID-19 cases in Denmark. Strategies to prevent absenteeism of HCW are urgently needed. Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is a vaccine against tuberculosis, with protective non-specific effects against other infections; significant reductions in morbidity and mortality have been reported, and a plausible immunological mechanism has been identified. We hypothesize that BCG vaccination can reduce HCW absenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary objective: To reduce absenteeism among HCW with direct patient contacts during the COVID-19 epidemic. Secondary objective: To reduce the number of HCW that are infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 epidemic and to reduce the number of hospital admissions amongst HCW with direct patient contacts during the COVID-19 epidemic. Study design: A multi-center randomized placebo controlled trial. Study population: 1500 HCW with direct patient contacts; defined as nurses, physicians and other medical staff working at emergency rooms and wards where COVID-infected patients are treated. Intervention: Participants will be randomized 1:1 to intradermal administration of a standard dose of BCG vaccine or placebo (saline). Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary endpoint: Number of days of (unplanned) absenteeism for any reason. Secondary endpoints: Number of days of (unplanned) absenteeism because of documented COVID infection. Cumulative incidence of hospital admissions. Risk for participants and impact: Based on previous experience and randomized controlled trials in adult and elderly individuals, the risks of BCG vaccination are considered low. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the potential beneficial effects of BCG vaccination through a lower work absenteeism rate of HCW and/or a mitigated clinical course of COVID infection.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is affecting the way many people live their lives, including seeking medical care and maintaining good self-care to keep healthy. Additionally, in the event many people become critically ill at once, COVID-19 has the possibility of overwhelming hospitals to the point where they have to make decisions about how to determine who receives intensive care and life-support measures. Many hospitals as well as local or state governments have been working on policies to determine how to make these decisions. This study seeks to learn about how COVID-19 has affected the way patients and healthcare providers care for themselves and about their thoughts and concerns about policies that may "ration" life-support resources.

Experience from the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak taught that healthcare workers (HCWs) often experience chronic stress effects for months or years after such an event, and that supporting HCWs requires attention to the marathon of occupational stress, not just the sprint of dramatic stressors that occur while infections are dominating the news. This study will test if the well-being of hospital workers facing a novel coronavirus outbreak is improved by adding either of two interventions: (1) Peer Resilience Champions (PRC): an interdisciplinary team of professionals who actively monitor for early signs of heightened stress within clinical teams, liaise between staff and senior management to improve organizational responsiveness, and provide direct support and teaching (under the supervision of experts in resilience, infection control, and professional education). Investigators will test the effectiveness of this PRC Intervention by rolling it out to different parts of the hospital in stages and comparing levels of burnout before and after the intervention reaches particular teams and units (a stepped wedge design). By the end of the study, PRC Support will have been provided to all clinical and research staff and many learners (> 6,000 people). Note that the provision of PRC support will be directed to the entire organization. The research portion of the study is the evaluation of PRC support through a repeated survey completed by consenting staff. Investigators will test the effectiveness of the PRC by measuring trends in burnout and other effects of stress over the course of the study in a subgroup of hospital workers (as many as consent, target ~1000 people) through an online questionnaire (called "How Are You?"). (2) The second intervention is an enriched version of the "How Are You?" Survey, which provides personalized feedback about coping, interpersonal interactions and moral distress. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to receive the shorter Express Survey (identifying data and outcome measures only), or the Enriched survey (all of the Express measures plus additional measures with feedback based on responses). It is hypothesized that both the PRC intervention and the Enriched Survey intervention will help prevent or reduce instances of burnout in HCWs.