The Exclusion of Older Persons From Vaccine and Treatment Trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019-Missing the Target.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Helfand BKI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7522773 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionWe analyzed the exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding individuals and those capable of pregnancy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine and clinical treatment trials.MethodsInclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted from all listed COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials from May 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020, using the U.S. National Library of Medicine database. We report rates of rates of exclusion for pregnant and lactating individuals and requirements for contraception for pregnancy-capable participants in COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials. The analysis included the association between clinical trial exclusion and vaccine and treatment type, study location, sponsor, and phase.ResultsPregnant and lactating individuals were explicitly excluded from most COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials. Of the 90 vaccine trials, 88 (97.8%) excluded pregnant individuals, 73 (81.1%) excluded lactating individuals, and 56 (62.2%) required contraception use. Of the 495 treatment trials, 350 (70.7%) excluded pregnant individuals, 269 (54.3%) excluded lactating individuals, and 91 (18.4%) required contraception use. Although vaccine type was not associated with pregnancy exclusion, it was associated with lactation exclusion (p = .01) and contraception requirement (p < .001). Treatment type was associated with pregnancy exclusion, lactation exclusion, and contraception requirement (all p < .001).ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination and treatment clinical trials mirrored historical trends restricting participation owing to pregnancy, lactation, and contraception nonuse, despite known safety profiles. People of childbearing potential should be considered for and afforded the same opportunity as males to make informed decisions on study participation, particularly in the setting of a global pandemic.
| S-EPMC9197956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As a concept, social exclusion has considerable potential to explain and respond to disadvantage in later life. However, in the context of ageing populations, the construct remains ambiguous. A disjointed evidence-base, spread across disparate disciplines, compounds the challenge of developing a coherent understanding of exclusion in older age. This article addresses this research deficit by presenting the findings of a two-stage scoping review encompassing seven separate reviews of the international literature pertaining to old-age social exclusion. Stage one involved a review of conceptual frameworks on old-age exclusion, identifying conceptual understandings and key domains of later-life exclusion. Stage two involved scoping reviews on each domain (six in all). Stage one identified six conceptual frameworks on old-age exclusion and six common domains across these frameworks: neighbourhood and community; services, amenities and mobility; social relations; material and financial resources; socio-cultural aspects; and civic participation. International literature concentrated on the first four domains, but indicated a general lack of research knowledge and of theoretical development. Drawing on all seven scoping reviews and a knowledge synthesis, the article presents a new definition and conceptual framework relating to old-age exclusion.
| S-EPMC5550622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare survival of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.MethodsWe analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from 27 February to 15 May 2020, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day all-cause mortality. We performed a survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox regression with adjustment for age, sex and covariates based on premorbid health, disease severity and the use of steroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome, including dexamethasone.ResultsAmong 1949 individuals, 21-day mortality was 21.5% in 1596 patients treated in hospitals that routinely prescribed (hydroxy)chloroquine, and 15.0% in 353 patients treated in hospitals that did not. In the adjusted Cox regression models this difference disappeared, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 0.81-1.47). When stratified by treatment actually received in individual patients, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine was associated with an increased 21-day mortality (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.24-2.02) in the full model.ConclusionsAfter adjustment for confounders, mortality was not significantly different in hospitals that routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine compared with hospitals that did not. We compared outcomes of hospital strategies rather than outcomes of individual patients to reduce the chance of indication bias. This study adds evidence against the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7554450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSome vaccines elicit nonspecific immune responses that may protect against heterologous infections. We evaluated the association between recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine (RZV) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.MethodsIn a cohort design, adults aged ≥50 years who received ≥1 RZV dose before 1 March 2020 were matched 1:2 to unvaccinated individuals and followed until 31 December 2020. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for COVID-19 outcomes were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. In a test-negative design, cases had a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test and controls had only negative tests, during 1 March-31 December 2020. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for RZV receipt were estimated using logistic regression.ResultsIn the cohort design, 149 244 RZV recipients were matched to 298 488 unvaccinated individuals. The aHRs for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were 0.84 (95% CI, .81-.87) and 0.68 (95% CI, .64-.74), respectively. In the test-negative design, 8.4% of 75 726 test-positive cases and 13.1% of 340 898 test-negative controls had received ≥1 RZV dose (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, .81-.86]).ConclusionsRZV vaccination was associated with a 16% lower risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and 32% lower risk of hospitalization. Further study of vaccine-induced nonspecific immunity for potential attenuation of future pandemics is warranted.
| S-EPMC8755259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients including older adults. The objective of this study was to evaluate the enrollment criteria that can limit the inclusion of older adults in clinical trials concerning cancer-related pain (CRP). The study included 356 trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome measures were the proportion of trials that excluded patients based on upper age limits (80 years of age or less), strict organ-specific exclusion criteria, broad and imprecise criteria, and inadequate performance score. One hundred and twenty-six trials (35.4%) had upper age limits. Strict exclusion criteria were used in 95 (26.7%) trials. Broad and imprecise exclusion criteria were listed in 57 (16.2%) trials. Low performance score was used as an exclusion criterion in 4 trials (1.1%). Overall, in 241 trials (67.7%) there was either an upper age limit or at least one strict or broad and imprecise exclusion criterion, or a criterion involving the performance status. The odds of excluding older adults were significantly higher in certain neoplasm types, study objectives, intervention types, and center locations. In conclusion, considerable proportion of recent clinical trials concerning CRP either explicitly exclude older adults or create high risk of such exclusion which substantially limits the evidence base for the treatment of such patients in clinical practice. Sponsors and investigators should consider careful modification of the enrollment criteria to improve the inclusion of older individuals who make up the major proportion of cancer patients population.
| S-EPMC9385985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, there is no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the suitability of COVID-19 vaccines for mass immunization. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of novel COVID-19 vaccine candidates under clinical trial evaluation and present a contemporary update on the development and implementation of a potential vaccines.MethodsFor this study PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were used to search for eligible studies on the interface between novel coronavirus and vaccine design until December 31, 2020.ResultsWe have included fourteen non-randomized and randomized controlled phase I-III trials. Implementation of a universal vaccination program with proven safety and efficacy through robust clinical evaluation is the long-term goal for preventing COVID-19. The immunization program must be cost-effective for mass production and accessibility. Despite pioneering techniques for the fast-track development of the vaccine in the current global emergency, mass production and availability of an effective COVID-19 vaccine could take some more time.ConclusionOur findings suggest a revisiting of the reported solicited and unsolicited systemic adverse events for COVID-19 candidate vaccines. Hence, it is alarming to judiciously expose thousands of participants to COVID-19 candidate vaccines at Phase-3 trials that have adverse events and insufficient evidence on safety and effectiveness that necessitates further justification.
| S-EPMC8033643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:The current paper reviews the English-language research on exclusion criteria in bipolar disorder treatment trials and discusses how study samples compare to the general bipolar patient population. Methods:& Results: Across 8 identified studies of exclusion criteria and their impact, between 55% and 96% of people with bipolar disorder would be excluded from treatment research. The number of exclusion criteria varies across bipolar disorder treatment research, with one study estimate of a median of 7 criteria used across studies. The criteria that excluded the greatest number of potential participants were comorbid substance use disorder, suicidal risk, and comorbid medical conditions. Both studies that compared treatment responses among participants who met and did not meet exclusion criteria found no statistically significant differences. Conclusions:Most potential participants are excluded from outcome research, which creates challenges for recruitment and limits generalizability of study findings. Common exclusionary practices lead to unrepresentative samples that limit generalizability and reduce the confidence of clinicians that findings can be translated to front-line practice with bipolar disorder patients.
| S-EPMC5898491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic exposed weaknesses in multiple domains and widened gender-based inequalities across the world. It also stimulated extraordinary scientific achievement by bringing vaccines to the public in less than a year. In this article, we discuss the implications of current vaccination guidance for pregnant and lactating women, if their exclusion from the first wave of vaccine trials was justified, and if a change in the current vaccine development pathway is necessary. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first vaccine regulatory approvals have been accompanied by inconsistent advice from public health, governmental, and professional authorities around the world. Denying vaccination to women who, although pregnant or breastfeeding, are fully capable of autonomous decision making is a throwback to a paternalistic era. Conversely, lack of evidence generated in a timely manner, upon which to make an informed decision, shifts responsibility from research sponsors and regulators and places the burden of decision making upon the woman and her healthcare advisor. The World Health Organization, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women, and others have highlighted the long-standing disadvantage experienced by women in relation to the development of vaccines and medicines. It is uncertain whether there was sufficient justification for excluding pregnant and lactating women from the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. In future, we recommend that regulators mandate plans that describe the development pathway for new vaccines and medicines that address the needs of women who are pregnant or lactating. These should incorporate, at the outset, a careful consideration of the balance of the risks of exclusion from or inclusion in initial studies, patient and public perspectives, details of "developmental and reproductive toxicity" studies, and approaches to collect data systematically from participants who are unknowingly pregnant at the time of exposure. This requires careful consideration of any previous knowledge about the mode of action of the vaccine and the likelihood of toxicity or teratogenicity. We also support the view that the default position should be a "presumption of inclusion," with exclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating only if justified on specific, not generic, grounds. Finally, we recommend closer coordination across countries with the aim of issuing consistent public health advice.
| S-EPMC7810027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A significant correlation has been shown between the binding antibody responses against original severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein and vaccine efficacy of 4 approved coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. We therefore assessed the immune response against original SARS-CoV-2 elicited by the adjuvanted S-Trimer vaccine, SCB-2019 + CpG/alum, in the same assay and laboratory. Responses to SCB-2019 were comparable or superior for antibody to original and Alpha variant when compared with 4 approved vaccines. The comparison accurately predicted success of the recently reported efficacy trial of SCB-2019 vaccine. Immunogenicity comparisons to original strain and variants of concern should be considered as a basis for authorization of vaccines.
| S-EPMC8763959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the urgent need for coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutics, early in the pandemic the Accelerating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public-private partnership rapidly designed a unique therapeutic agent intake and assessment process for candidate treatments of coronavirus disease 2019. These treatments included antivirals, immune modulators, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing antibodies, and organ-supportive treatments at both the preclinical and clinical stages of development. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group Agent Prioritization subgroup established a uniform data collection process required to perform an assessment of any agent type using review criteria that were identified and differentially weighted for each agent class. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group evaluated over 750 therapeutic agents with potential application for coronavirus disease 2019 and prioritized promising candidates for testing within the master protocols conducted by ACTIV. In addition, promising agents among preclinical candidates were selected by ACTIV to be matched with laboratories that could assist in executing rigorous preclinical studies. Between April 14, 2020, and May 31, 2021, the Agent Prioritization subgroup advanced 20 agents into the Accelerating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines master protocols and matched 25 agents with laboratories to assist with preclinical testing.
| S-EPMC8507598 | biostudies-literature