Dataset Information

Chemoprophylaxis trial designs in epidemics: insights from a systematic review of COVID-19 study registrations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chemoprophylactics 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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%).

Conclusion

Many 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 registration

Our protocol is registered at https://www.osf.io/vp56f on May 20, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Manoharan L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164073 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:COVID-19 has imposed a very substantial direct threat to the physical health of those infected, although the corollary impact on mental health may be even more burdensome. Here we focus on assessing the mental health impact of COVID-19 and of other epidemics in the community. We searched five electronic databases until December 9, 2020, for all peer-reviewed original studies reporting any prevalence or correlates of mental disorders in the general population following novel epidemics in English, Chinese or Portuguese. We synthesised prevalence estimates from probability samples during COVID-19 and past epidemics. The meta-analytical effect size was the prevalence of relevant outcomes, estimated via random-effects model. I2 statistics, Doi plots and the LFK index were used to examine heterogeneity and publication bias. This study is pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020179105. We identified 255 eligible studies from 50 countries on: COVID-19 (n = 247 studies), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS; n = 5), Ebola virus disease (n = 2), and 1918 influenza (n = 1). During COVID-19, we estimated the point prevalence for probable anxiety (20.7%, 95% CI 12.9-29.7), probable depression (18.1%, 13.0-23.9), and psychological distress (13.0%, 0-34.1). Correlates for poorer mental health include female sex, lower income, pre-existing medical conditions, perceived risk of infection, exhibiting COVID-19-like symptoms, social media use, financial stress, and loneliness. Public trust in authorities, availability of accurate information, adoption of preventive measures and social support were associated with less morbidity. The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and other epidemics could be comparable to major disasters and armed conflicts. The considerable heterogeneity in our analysis indicates that more random samples are needed. Health-care professionals should be vigilant of the psychological toll of epidemics, including among those who have not been infected.

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.

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:Four billion people worldwide have experienced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) confinement. Such unprecedented extent of mobility restriction to curb the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound impacts on how individuals live, travel and retain well-being. This systematic review aims to identify (i) the social consequences of mass quarantine-community-wide movement restrictions-during previous and current infectious disease outbreaks and (ii) recommended strategies to mitigate the negative social implications of COVID-19 lockdowns. Considering social determinants of health, we conducted a systematic review by searching five databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database) for publications from inception to 9 April 2020. No limitation was set on language, location or study type. Studies that (i) contained peer-reviewed original empirical evidence and (ii) focussed on non-epidemiological implications of mass quarantine were included. We thematically synthesized and reported data due to heterogeneous disease and country context. Of 3067 publications found, 15 original peer-reviewed articles were selected for full-text extraction. Psychological distress, heightened communication inequalities, food insecurity, economic challenges, diminished access to health care, alternative delivery of education and gender-based violence were identified as negative social consequences of community-based quarantine in six infectious disease epidemics, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, altruistic attitudes were identified as a positive consequence during previous quarantines. Diverse psychological and social consequences of mass quarantine in previous and current epidemics were evident, but individual country policies had been highly varied in how well they addressed the needs of affected individuals, especially those who are socially marginalized. Policymakers should balance the pros and cons of movement restrictions, facilitate multisectoral action to tackle social inequalities, provide clear and coherent guidance to the public and undertake time-bound policy evaluations to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and to establish preparedness strategies for future epidemics.