Randomized Controlled Trials on COVID-19 Should Be Accurate and Trustworthy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mol BW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8733489 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7508503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered."MethodsWe evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials.ResultsPower for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time.DiscussionTime-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.
| S-EPMC7611901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) altered the logistics of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The need to reduce in-person research and clinical activities, however, presented an additional level of complexity in order to continue conducting RCTs that focused on the development of medications for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). The visits required a systematic objective evaluation from the physician and mental health professional and clinical staff, as many of the safety and efficacy assessments are self-reported. The following commentary addresses the successes and limitations our RCTs encountered during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
| S-EPMC7832637 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7393781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).PurposeThe purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs.Data sourcesWe conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.Study selectionAfter screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints.Data extractionTrial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.Data synthesisOf 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data.ConclusionsThe findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.
| S-EPMC7834682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, only dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients. Tocilizumab has been recently added to the treatment guidelines for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but data remain conflicting.Study design and methodsElectronic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane central were searched from March 1, 2020, until March 10, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tocilizumab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, mechanical ventilation, and time to discharge.ResultsNine studies (with 6490 patients) were included in the analysis. In total, 3358 patients received tocilizumab, and 3132 received standard care/placebo. Pooled analysis showed a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, p = 0.02) and progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, p < 0.0001) in the tocilizumab arm compared to standard therapy or placebo. In addition, there was a trend towards improved median time to hospital discharge (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.45, p = 0.0002).ConclusionsTocilizumab therapy improves outcomes of mortality and need for mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection compared with standard therapy or placebo. Our findings suggest the efficacy of tocilizumab therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and strengthen the concept that tocilizumab is a promising therapeutic intervention to improve mortality and morbidity in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8164079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.
| S-EPMC8506153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid™ or the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted), the first protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, received emergency use authorization (EUA) as a primary series/booster and is available globally. NVX-CoV2373 primary series demonstrated efficacy rates of 89.7-90.4 % and an acceptable safety profile. This article summarizes safety in adult recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of primary series NVX-CoV2373 in four randomized placebo-controlled trials.MethodsAll participants who received NVX-CoV2373 primary series or placebo (pre-crossover) were included according to actual received treatment. The safety period was from Day 0 (first vaccination) to unblinding/receipt of EUA-approved/crossover vaccine, end of each study (EOS), or last visit date/cutoff date minus 14 days. The analysis reviewed local and systemic solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days after NVX-CoV2373 or placebo; unsolicited AEs from after Dose 1 to 28 days after Dose 2; serious AEs (SAEs), deaths, AEs of special interest, and vaccine-related medically attended AEs from Day 0 through end of follow-up (incidence rate per 100 person-years).FindingsPooled data from 49,950 participants (NVX-CoV2373, n = 30,058; placebo, n = 19,892) were included. Solicited reactions after any dose were more frequent in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 76 %/systemic, 70 %) than placebo recipients (local, 29 %/systemic, 47 %), and were mostly of mild-to-moderate severity. Grade 3+ reactions were infrequent, with greater frequency in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 6.28 %/systemic, 11.36 %) than placebo recipients (local, 0.48 %/systemic, 3.58 %). SAEs and deaths occurred with similarly low frequency in NVX-CoV2373 (SAEs: 0.91 %, deaths: 0.07 %) and placebo recipients (SAEs: 1.0 %, deaths: 0.06 %).InterpretationTo date, NVX-CoV2373 has displayed an acceptable safety profile in healthy adults.FundingSupported by Novavax, Inc.
| S-EPMC10169578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.ResultsOf the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.ConclusionsAlthough select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.
| S-EPMC8802260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significant impact on the entire human society. However, in the face of continually emerging more contagious SARS-CoV-2 variant, the risk to bog down into more severe crisis is around us anytime. Here, we introduce an isothermal, ultrasensitive method for identifying important SNV mutations of SARS-CoV-2. It is based on combined specificity of toehold-assisted linear probe ligation and in vitro transcription signal enlargement, TLT. A ready-to-use panel of TLT assay is developed including detection of 80 crucial SARS-CoV-2 SNVs, by which people could response to the next coming contagious virus variant more rapidly. These advanced point-of-care features make TLT one good approach for large scale population testing of special SARS-CoV-2 variants of interesting.
| S-EPMC9283128 | biostudies-literature