Dataset Information

Unravelling data for rapid evidence-based response to COVID-19: a summary of the unCoVer protocol

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

unCoVer—Unravelling data for rapid evidence-based response to COVID-19—is a Horizon 2020-funded network of 29 partners from 18 countries capable of collecting and using real-world data (RWD) derived from the response and provision of care to patients with COVID-19 by health systems across Europe and elsewhere. unCoVer aims to exploit the full potential of this information to rapidly address clinical and epidemiological research questions arising from the evolving pandemic.

Methods and analysis

From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, partners are gathering RWD from electronic health records currently including information from over 22 000 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and national surveillance and screening data, and registries with over 1 900 000 COVID-19 cases across Europe, with continuous updates. These heterogeneous datasets will be described, harmonised and integrated into a multi-user data repository operated through Opal-DataSHIELD, an interoperable open-source server application. Federated data analyses, without sharing or disclosing any individual-level data, will be performed with the objective to reveal patients’ baseline characteristics, biomarkers, determinants of COVID-19 prognosis, safety and effectiveness of treatments, and potential strategies against COVID-19, as well as epidemiological patterns. These analyses will complement evidence from efficacy/safety clinical trials, where vulnerable, more complex/heterogeneous populations and those most at risk of severe COVID-19 are often excluded.

Ethics and dissemination

After strict ethical considerations, databases will be available through a federated data analysis platform that allows processing of available COVID-19 RWD without disclosing identification information to analysts and limiting output to data aggregates. Dissemination of unCoVer’s activities will be related to the access and use of dissimilar RWD, as well as the results generated by the pooled analyses. Dissemination will include training and educational activities, scientific publications and conference communications.

SUBMITTER: Penalvo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8602928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for frail older adults through a rapid review, supplemented with geriatricians' consensus statements.MethodsReferences were identified through MEDLINE and Web of Science on 1st February 2021 using relevant terms related to COVID-19, vaccine, and older adults. Searches were also conducted on reference lists of review articles and Google Scholar. The content was updated on 8th April via hand searching. We included studies on Phase III randomized controlled trials, and data from real world administration of vaccines. A two-round Delphi study was conducted with 15 geriatricians to elicit their thoughts and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccination for frail older adults.ResultsFive Phase III randomized controlled efficacy trials reported vaccine efficacy ranging from 66.7% to 95% among participants aged 16 to 95. The vaccine efficacy for participants aged 65 and above is 94.7% and 86.4% for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna respectively. Sputnik V reported a vaccine efficacy of 91.8% for participants 60 and above. Serious adverse events were reported by 0.27% to 1% of participants who received at least one dose of the four vaccines. For the Delphi study, 16 out of 24 statements achieved consensus. The Delphi panel opined that frail or very old adults, except those with limited life expectancy, should be vaccinated due to their vulnerability. They also agree that vaccination decisions should be made by patients when possible, with the involvement of next-of-kin should the frail older adult be unable to do so. Lastly, the panel thought that frail older adults should be included in future clinical trials.ConclusionIn early clinical trials, there is paucity of evidence on efficacy and safety of current COVID-19 vaccines among frail older adults. Geriatricians' consensus indicate that frail older adults should be vaccinated except where life expectancy is limited. Future trials assessing efficacy and safety should include frail older adults.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 Evidence Support Team (CEST) was a provincial initiative that combined the support of policymakers, researchers, and clinical practitioners to initiate a new learning health cycle (LHS) in response to the pandemic. The primary aim of CEST was to produce and sustain the best available COVID-19 evidence to facilitate decision-making in Saskatchewan, Canada. To achieve this objective, four provincial organizations partnered to establish a single, data-driven system.MethodsThe CEST partnership was driven by COVID-19 questions from Emergency Operational Committee (EOC) of the Saskatchewan Health Authority. CEST included three processes: (a) clarifying the nature and priority of COVID-19 policy and clinical questions; (b) providing Rapid Reviews (RRR) and Evidence Search Reports (ESR); and (c) seeking the requestors' evaluation of the product. A web-based repository, including a dashboard and database, was designed to house ESRs and RRRs and offered a common platform for clinicians, academics, leaders, and policymakers to find COVID-19 evidence.ResultsIn CEST's first year, 114 clinical and policy questions have been posed resulting in 135 ESRs and 108 RRRs. While most questions (41.3%) originated with the EOC, several other teams were assembled to address a myriad of questions related to areas such as long-term care, public health and prevention, infectious diseases, personal protective equipment, vulnerable populations, and Indigenous health. Initial challenges were mobilization of diverse partners and teams, remote work, lack of public access, and quality of emerging COVID-19 literature. Current challenges indicate the need for institutional commitment for CEST sustainability. Despite these challenges, the CEST provided the Saskatchewan LHS with a template for successful collaboration.ConclusionsThe urgency of COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

Project description:IntroductionAccurate and affordable laboratory testing is key to timely diagnosis and appropriate management of patients with COVID-19. New laboratory test protocols are released into the market under emergency use authorisation with limited evidence on diagnostic test accuracy. As such, robust evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and the costs of available tests is urgently needed to inform policy and practice especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to determine the diagnostic test accuracy, cost-effectiveness and utility of laboratory test strategies for COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.Methods and analysisThis will be a multistaged, protocol-driven systematic review conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. We will search for relevant literature in at least six public health databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the WHO Global Index Medicus. In addition, we will search Cochrane Library, COVID-END and grey literature databases to identify additional relevant articles before double-screening and abstraction of data. We will conduct a structured narrative and quantitative synthesis of the results guided by the Fryback and Thornbury framework for assessing a diagnostic test. The primary outcome is COVID-19 diagnostic test accuracy. Using the GRADE approach specific to diagnostic accuracy tests, we will appraise the overall quality of evidence and report the results following the original PRISMA statement. The protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).Ethics and disseminationEthical review was done by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The published article will be accessible to policy and decision makers. The findings of this review will guide clinical practice and policy decisions and highlight areas for future research.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020209528.