Dataset Information

Concordance between the results of randomized and non-randomized interventional clinical trials assessing the efficacy of drugs for COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess whether results of observational studies of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were reproduced in subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, including studies published online between 1 January and 27 October 2020 that evaluated potential COVID-19 treatments and reported all-cause mortality.

Results

Of 133 comparisons included in 117 studies, most were non-randomized (104/133, 78%). Hydroxychloroquine was the most common drug type, combined with azithromycin (n = 27, 20%) or alone (n = 22, 16%), followed by IL-6 inhibitors (n = 36, 27%) and corticosteroids (n = 26, 20%). Seventy-one percent (74/104) of non-randomized studies reported adjusted survival results and only 8% (8/104) adjusted for immortal time bias. Only two RCTs (2/29, 7%) reported significant survival benefit, both reporting treatment with corticosteroids, while 32/104 (31%) non-randomized studies showed statistically significant survival benefit associated with the intervention arm. The results of the majority (28/32, 88%) of non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit were not replicated by large-scale RCTs.

Conclusions

The results of most non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were not replicated by large RCTs. Regulators and healthcare professionals should exercise caution and resist the pressure to approve and prescribe drugs of unproven efficacy and potential toxicity to optimize patient care and maintain public trust in medical science.

SUBMITTER: Shepshelovich D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244730 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor a randomized trial, the primary publication is usually the one which reports the results of the primary outcome and provides consolidated data from all study centers. Other aspects of a randomized trial's findings (that is, non-primary results) are often reported in subsequent publications.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional review of the characteristics and type of information reported in non-primary reports (n = 69) of randomized trials (indexed in PubMed core clinical journals in 2009) and whether they report pre-specified or exploratory analyses. We also compared consistency of information in non-primary publications with that reported in the primary publication.ResultsThe majority (n = 56; 81%) of non-primary publications were large, multicenter trials, published in specialty journals. Most reported subgroup analyses (n = 27; 39%), analyzing a specific subgroup of patients from the randomized trial, or reported on secondary outcomes (n = 29; 42%); 19% (n = 13) reported extended follow-up. Less than half reported details of trial registration (n = 30; 43%) or the trial protocol (n = 27; 39%) and in 41% (n = 28) it was unclear from reading the abstract that the report was not the primary publication for the trial. Non-primary publications often analyzed and reported multiple different outcomes (16% reported >20 outcomes) and in 10% (n = 7) it was unclear how many outcomes had actually been assessed; in 42% (n = 29) it was unclear whether the analyses reported were pre-specified or exploratory. Only 39% (n = 27) of non-primary publications described the primary outcome of the randomized trial, 6% (n = 4) reported its numerical results and 9% (n = 6) details of how participants were randomized.ConclusionNon-primary publications often lack important information about the randomized trial and the type of analyses conducted and whether these were pre-specified or exploratory to enable readers to accurately identify and assess the validity and reliably of the study findings. We provide recommendations for what information authors should include in non-primary reports of randomized trials.

Project description:BackgroundInterventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old population have arisen much attention in recent years, however, little is known about the characteristics of registered clinical trials regarding this field. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of registered interventional trials for infectious diseases in old populations on ClinicalTrials.gov.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed. We used viral OR bacterial OR fungal OR parasitic OR infectious disease to search the ClinicalTrials.gov database and to assess characteristics of included trials. The age of participants was restricted to more than 65 years old. All analyses were performed using the SPSS19.0 software.ResultsA total of 138 registered trials were included. Among them, 105(76.1%) trials were completed; however, the results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov for only 44(31.9%) trials. North America was the most frequently identified study location (52.9%), followed by Europe (30.4%) and Asia (11.6%). Seventy-one percent trials focused on viral pathogens, followed by bacterial pathogens (22.5%). A total of 84.1% trials were prevention oriented. A total of 84.1% trials used randomization, 73.2% trials used parallel assignment, and 64.5% used masking. Eighty-six trials were industry-funded and 52 were non-industry-funded. Industry-funded trials had higher percentages than non-industry-funded trials in available results, prevention trial, and phase 2 and phase 3 trial, and lager sample size trial. One hundred eleven trials were vaccine trials and 27 trials were non-vaccine trials. Vaccine trials had higher percentages than non-vaccine trials in available results, leading industry sponsor and viral etiology.ConclusionsThe current study is the first study of the landscape of interventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old populations registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing the basis for treatment and prevention of infectious diseases in old populations. Trials in this field are still relatively lacking, and additional and better trials are needed.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcomesTrial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomes RESULTS: Overall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.DesignCross sectional audit study.SettingEUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.PopulationRandom sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).Main outcome measuresProportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.ResultsIn the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).ConclusionsEUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.