COVID-19 Clinical Trials: Unraveling a Methodological Gordian Knot.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mathioudakis AG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7462407 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COVID-19 Clinical Trials: Unraveling a Methodological Gordian Knot.
Mathioudakis Alexander G AG Fally Markus M Hashad Rola R Knight Sean S Felton Timothy T Vestbo Jørgen J
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20200901 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:In the late 20th century, identification of the major protein components of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles provided a window into the molecular pathology of Alzheimer's disease, ushering in an era of optimism that targeted therapeutics would soon follow. The amyloid-cascade hypothesis took hold very early, supported by discoveries that dominant mutations in APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 cause the very rare, early-onset, familial forms of the disease. However, in the past decade, a stunning series of failed Phase-3 clinical trials, testing anti-amyloid antibodies or processing-enzyme inhibitors, prompts the question, What went wrong? The FDA's recent controversial approval of aducanumab, despite widespread concerns about efficacy and safety, only amplifies the question. The assumption that common, late-onset Alzheimer's is a milder form of familial disease was not adequately questioned. The differential timing of discoveries, including blood-brain-barrier-penetrant tracers for imaging of plaques and tangles, made it easy to focus on amyloid. Furthermore, the neuropathology community initially implemented Alzheimer's diagnostic criteria based on plaques only. The discovery that MAPT mutations cause frontotemporal dementia with tauopathy made it even easier to overlook the tangles in Alzheimer's. Many important findings were simply ignored. The accepted mouse models did not predict the human clinical trials data. Given this lack of pharmacological validity, input from geneticists in collaboration with neuroscientists is needed to establish criteria for valid models of Alzheimer's disease. More generally, scientists using genetic model organisms as whole-animal bioassays can contribute to building the pathogenesis network map of Alzheimer's disease.
| S-EPMC8733445 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3659873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The networks of blood and lymphatic vessels and of the extracellular matrix and their cellular and structural components, that are collectively termed the tumor microenvironment, are frequently co-opted and shaped by cancer cells to survive, invade, and form distant metastasis. With an enviable capacity to adapt to continually changing environments, cancer represents the epitome of functional chaos, a stark contrast to the hierarchical and organized differentiation processes that dictate the development and life of biological organisms. The consequences of changing landscapes such as hypoxia and acidic extracellular pH in and around tumors create a cascade of changes in multiple pathways and networks that become apparent only several years later as recurrence and metastasis. These molecular and phenotypic changes, several of which are mediated by COX-2, approach the complexities of a "Gordian Knot." We review evidence from our studies and from literature suggesting that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) biology presents a nodal point in cancer biology and an "Achilles heel" of COX-2-dependent tumors.
| S-EPMC3619664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.Study designWe conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.ResultsWe included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.ConclusionsThere is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.RegistrationCRD42020192095.
| S-EPMC8280397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperuricemia is defined as serum uric acid level of more than 7 mg/dL and blood levels of uric acid are causally associated with gout, as implicated by evidence from randomized clinical trials using urate lowering therapies. Uric acid as a cardiovascular risk factor often accompanies metabolic syndrome, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic renal disease, and obesity. Despite the association of hyperuricemia with cardiovascular risk factors, it has remained controversial as to whether uric acid is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease. To settle this issue, and in the absence of large randomized controlled trials, Mendelian randomization analysis in which the exposure is defined based on the presence or absence of a specific allele that influences a risk factor of interest have tried to shed light on this.
| S-EPMC5179380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.
| S-EPMC7878793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability. This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5 May 2020, and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality (72.5%) and adverse events (55.6%), while hospital admission (50.8%) and viral detection/load (55.6%) are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed. The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for greater consistency, to enable decision makers to compare and contrast studies.
| S-EPMC7765224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most frequent genetic disorder resulting in increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from childhood, leading to premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) if left untreated. FH diagnosis is based on clinical criteria and/or genetic testing and its prevalence is estimated as being up to 1:300,000−400,000 for the homozygous and ~1:200−300 for the heterozygous form. Apart from its late diagnosis, FH is also undertreated, despite the available lipid-lowering therapies. In addition, elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) (>50 mg/dL; 120 nmol/L), mostly genetically determined, has been identified as an important cardiovascular risk factor with prevalence rate of ~20% in the general population. Novel Lp(a)-lowering therapies have been recently developed and their cardiovascular efficacy is currently investigated. Although a considerable proportion of FH patients is also diagnosed with high Lp(a) levels, there is a debate whether these two entities are associated. Nevertheless, Lp(a), particularly among patients with FH, has been established as a significant cardiovascular risk factor. In this narrative review, we present up-to-date evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of both FH and elevated Lp(a) with a special focus on their association and joint effect on ASCVD risk.
| S-EPMC9693181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Junior residents routinely prescribe medications for hospitalised patients with only arms-length supervision, which compromises patient safety. A cardinal example is insulin prescribing, which is commonplace, routinely delegated to very junior doctors, difficult, potentially very dangerous, and getting no better. Our aim was to operationalise the concept of 'readiness to prescribe' by validating an instrument to quality-improve residents' workplace prescribing education. METHODS:Guided by theories of behaviour change, implementation, and error, and by empirical evidence, we developed and refined a mixed-methods 24-item evaluation instrument, and analysed numerical responses from Foundation Trainees (junior residents) in Northern Ireland, UK using principal axis factoring, and conducted a framework analysis of participants' free-text responses. RESULTS:255 trainees participated, 54% women and 46% men, 80% of whom were in the second foundation year. The analysis converged on a 4-factor solution explaining 57% of the variance. Participants rated their capability to prescribe higher (79%) than their capability to learn to prescribe (69%; p<0.001) and rated the support to their prescribing education lower still (43%; p<0.001). The findings were similar in men and women, first and second year trainees, and in different hospitals. Free text responses described an unreflective type of learning from experience in which participants tended to 'get by' when faced with complex problems. DISCUSSION:Operationalising readiness to prescribe as a duality, comprising residents' capability and the fitness of their educational environments, demonstrated room for improvement in both. We offer the instrument to help clinical educators improve the two in tandem.
| S-EPMC6980548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The complexity of cancer requires a comprehensive approach to understand its diverse manifestations and underlying mechanisms. Initially outlined by Hanahan and Weinberg in 2000 and updated in 2010, the hallmarks of cancer provide a conceptual basis for understanding inherent variability in cancer biology. Recent expansions have further elucidated additional hallmarks, including phenotypic plasticity and senescent cells. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified the key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs) to evaluate their carcinogenic potential. We analyzed chemicals of concern for environmental exposure that interact with specific receptors to induce genomic instability, epigenetic alterations, immune suppression, and receptor-mediated effects, thereby contributing to chronic inflammation. Despite their varying degrees of carcinogenicity, these chemicals have similar KCC profiles. Our analysis highlights the pivotal role of receptor binding in activating most other KCCs, underscoring their significance in cancer initiation. Although KCCs are associated with early molecular or cellular events, they do not encompass processes directly linked to full cellular malignancy. Thus, there is a need to integrate clear endpoints that anchor KCCs to the acquisition of a complete malignant phenotype into chemical testing. From the perspective of toxicology and cancer research, an all-encompassing strategy that incorporates both existing and novel KCCs and cancer hallmarks is essential to enable the targeted identification of prevalent carcinogens and facilitate zone-specific prevention strategies. To achieve this goal, collaboration between the KCC and cancer hallmarks communities becomes essential.
| S-EPMC11491790 | biostudies-literature