Dataset Information

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

ABSTRACT: Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results. Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions: Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence. The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.

SUBMITTER: Maguire BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610178 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Maguire Brittany J BJ McLean Alistair R D ARD Rashan Sumayyah S Antonio Emilia Sitsofe ES Bagaria Jayshree J Bentounsi Zineb Z Brack Matthew M Caldwell Fiona F Carrara Verena Ilona VI Citarella Barbara Wanjiru BW Dahal Prabin P Feteh Vitalis Fambombi VF H B Guérin Marius M Kennon Kalynn K Bilton Lahaut Kathinka K Makuka Gerald Jamberi GJ Ngu Roland R Obiesie Sopuruchukwu S Richmond Caitlin C Singh-Phulgenda Sauman S Strudwick Samantha S Tyrrell Carina S B CSB Schwinn Austin A King David D Newton Paul N PN Price Ric N RN Merson Laura L Stepniewska Kasia K Guérin Philippe J PJ

Wellcome open research 20200602

<b>Background:</b> Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics ...[more]

PMID: 33154979

Similar Datasets

Project description:Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R 2?=?0.02, p?=?0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R 2?=?0.01, p?=?0.73).The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

Project description:BackgroundChemoprophylactics against emerging epidemic and pandemic infectious diseases offer potential for prevention but require efficacy and safety analysis before widespread use can be recommended. Chemoprophylaxis with repurposed drugs enables deployment ahead of development of novel vaccines. It may have particular utility as a stopgap ahead of vaccine deployment or when vaccines become less effective on virus variants, in countries where there may be structural inaccessibility to vaccines or in specific risk-groups. Rapid implementation of robust trial designs is a persistent challenge in epidemics. We systematically reviewed SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis trial registrations from the first 21 weeks of the pandemic to critically appraise significant design features and alignment of study populations to clinical and public health uses, and describe candidate chemoprophylactic agents.MethodsWe searched online international trial databases from 31 Dec 2019 to 26 May 2020 using keywords "proph*" or "prevention". Trial protocols assessing efficacy of chemoprophylactic agents for COVID-19 were included. Trial components were screened for eligibility and relevant studies extracted. Key trial design features were assessed.ResultsWe found 76 chemoprophylaxis study registrations, proposing enrolment of 208,367 people with median size of 490 (IQR 262-1710). A randomised design was specified for 63 trials, 61 included a control group and total proposed enrolment size was 197,010, median 600 (IQR 236-1834). Four protocols provided information on effect size sought. We estimate that for a control group attack rate of 10%, 66% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 50% effect size, and 97% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 30% effect size (at the 80% level). We found evidence of adaptive design in one trial registration only. Laboratory-confirmed infection with or without symptoms was the most common primary outcome. Polymerase chain reaction testing alone was used in 46% of trials, serological testing in 6.6% and 14.5% used both testing methods. Healthcare workers were the target population in 52/79 (65.8%) trials: 49 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 3 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sixteen trials (20.3%) planned PEP in close contacts. Five studies (6.3%) considered chemoprophylaxis in clinical-risk patients. Older adults were the focus of recruitment in only 3 (3.8%) studies (all long-term care facilities). Two (2.5%) studies of PrEP in the general population included older adults. Hydroxychloroquine was the most common candidate agent in 55/79 trials (69.6%), followed by chloroquine (4/79, 5.0%) and lopinavir/ritonavir (3/79, 3.8%).ConclusionMany registered COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis efficacy trials were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful protection at epidemiologically informed attack rates. This, compounded with the time that has taken to organise these trials as compared to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, has rendered these trials of marginal importance. International coordination mechanisms and collaboration is required. Supporting the design of feasible chemoprophylaxis trials, large enough to generate strong evidence, early on in an epidemic using adaptive platform trial designs will allow structured entry and exit of candidate agents and rapid stand-up of trial infrastructure.Review protocol registrationOur protocol is registered at https://www.osf.io/vp56f on May 20, 2020.

Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsEligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.ResultsOf 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed.Methods and findingsOur objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations.Evidence reviewFor this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021.FindingsThe analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Dataset Information

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Publications

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets