MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282839906 · doi:10.1101/2022.06.13.22276369

Interferon Beta-1α ring prophylaxis to reduce household transmission of SARS-CoV-2: the Containing Coronavirus Disease-19 randomized clinical trial

2022· preprint· en· W4282839906 on OpenAlexaff
José A. Castro‐Rodríguez, Eleanor N. Fish, Tobi Kollmann, Carolina Iturriaga, Yuliya V. Karpievitch, Casey P. Shannon, Virginia Chen, Robert Balshaw, Samuel Montgomery, Joseph D. Ho, Rym Ben Othman, Radhouana Aniba, Francisca Gidi-Yunge, Lucy Hartnell, Guillermo Pérez‐Mateluna, Marcela Urzúa, Scott J. Tebbutt, Diego Garcia‐Huidobro, Cecilia Perret, Arturo Borzutzky, Stephen M. Stick

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationPrevention of Organ FailureUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineViral sheddingTransmission (telecommunications)PopulationRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)SeroconversionInternal medicinePediatricsImmunologyEnvironmental healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance Evidence suggests that early, robust type 1 interferon responses to SARS-CoV-2 are critical determinants for COVID-19 disease outcomes, accelerating viral clearance and limiting viral shedding. Objective We undertook a ring prophylaxis study to determine whether pegylated IFNβ-1α could reduce SARS-CoV-2 household transmission. Design A cluster randomized clinical trial of pegylated IFNβ-1α conducted in Santiago, Chile. Recruitment was conducted between December 4 th 2020, and 31 st May 2021, with the last follow-up completed June 29 th 2021. Setting The study was conducted across 341 households in the metropolitan area of Santiago, Chile. Participants Index cases were identified from databases of those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 clinics and emergency room visits in Santiago, Chile. 5,154 index cases were assessed for eligibility, 1,372 index cases were invited to participate, and 341 index cases and their household contacts (n = 831) were enrolled in the study. Intervention Households were cluster randomized to receive 125µg subcutaneous pegylated IFNβ-1α (n = 172 households, 607 participants), or standard care (n = 169 households, 565 participants). Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Frequentist and Bayesian analyses were undertaken to determine the effects of treatment on (i) reducing viral shedding in index cases and (ii) reducing viral transmission to treatment-eligible household contacts. Four secondary outcomes were assessed including duration of viral shedding, effects on viral transmission and seroconversion, incidence of hospitalization, and incidence and severity of reported adverse events. A post-hoc ‘at risk population’ was defined as households where the index case was positive at the start of the study and there was at least one treatment eligible contact in a household who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Results In total, 1172 participants in 341 households underwent randomization, with 607 assigned to receive IFNβ-1α and 565 to standard care. Based on intention to treat and per protocol analyses, IFNβ-1α treatment was ineffective. However, in the ‘at risk’ population, the relative risk of infection was reduced by 23% in treated individuals and that there was a 95% probability that IFNβ-1α reduced household transmission Conclusions and Relevance Ring prophylaxis with IFNβ-1α reduces the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within a household. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04552379

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→