Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial

Background

Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

Methods

The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo.

Findings

The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88–1.11) or other secondary outcomes.

Interpretation

In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.

Funding

The trial was supported by FastGrants and The Rainwater Foundation.

Resilient Clinical Trial Infrastructure in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the TOGETHER Randomized Platform Clinical Trial

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research groups across the world developed trial protocols to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. Despite this initial enthusiasm, only a small portion of these protocols were implemented. Of those implemented, a fraction successfully recruited their target sample size to analyze and disseminate findings. More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 pandemic, only a few clinical trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19 have generated new evidence. Productive randomized platform clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 treatments may attribute their success to intentional investments in developing resilient clinical trial infrastructures. Health system resiliency discourse provides a conceptual framework for characterizing attributes for withstanding shocks. This framework may also be useful for contextualizing the attributes of productive clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapies. We characterize the successful attributes and lessons learned in developing the TOGETHER Trial infrastructure using a health system resiliency framework. This framework may be considered by clinical trialists aiming to build resilient trial infrastructures capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to global health threats.

How to Use and Interpret the Results of a Platform Trial: Users' Guide to the Medical Literature

Platform trials are a type of randomized clinical trial that allow simultaneous comparison of multiple intervention groups against a single control group that serves as a common control based on a prespecified interim analysis plan. The platform trial design enables introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated to evaluate multiple interventions in an ongoing manner using a single overarching protocol called a master (or core) protocol. When multiple treatment candidates are available, rapid scientific therapeutic discoveries may be made. Platform trials have important potential advantages in creating an efficient trial infrastructure that can help address critical clinical questions as the evidence evolves. Platform trials have recently been used in investigations of evolving therapies for patients with COVID-19. The purpose of this Users' Guide to the Medical Literature is to describe fundamental concepts of platform trials and master protocols and review issues in the conduct and interpretation of these studies. This Users' Guide is intended to help clinicians and readers understand articles reporting on interventions evaluated using platform trial designs.

A multi-center, adaptive, randomized, platform trial to evaluate the effect of repurposed medicines in outpatients with early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and high-risk for complications: the TOGETHER master trial protocol

Background: There remains a need for an effective and affordable outpatient treatment for early COVID-19. Multiple repurposed drugs have shown promise in treating COVID-19. We describe a master protocol that will assess the efficacy of different repurposed drugs as treatments for early COVID-19 among outpatients at a high risk for severe complications. Methods: The TOGETHER Trial is a multi-center platform adaptive randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Patients are included if they are at least 18 years of age, have a positive antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and have an indication for high risk of disease severity, including co-morbidities, older age, or high body mass index. Eligible patients are randomized with equal chance to an investigational product (IP) or to placebo.The primary endpoint is hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for greater than 6 hours or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. Secondary outcomes include mortality, adverse events, adherence, and viral clearance. Scheduled interim analyses are conducted and reviewed by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC), who make recommendations on continuing or stopping each IP. The platform adaptive design go-no-go decision rules are extended to dynamically incorporate external evidence on COVID-19 interventions from ongoing independent randomized clinical trials. Discussion: Results from this trial will assist in the identification of therapeutics for the treatment of early diagnosed COVID-19. The novel methodological extension of the platform adaptive design to dynamically incorporate external evidence is one of the first of its kind and may provide highly valuable information for all COVID-19 trials going forward. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04727424 (27/01/2021)

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial

Background

Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19.

Methods

This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing.

Findings

The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18–102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52–0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53–0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21–0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36–1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups.

Interpretation

Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital.

Funding

FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Translation

For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

A multi-center, adaptive, randomized, platform trial to evaluate the effect of repurposed medicines in outpatients with early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and high-risk for complications: the TOGETHER master trial protocol

Background: Although vaccines are currently available for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there remains a need for an effective and affordable outpatient treatment for early COVID-19. Multiple repurposed drugs have shown promise in treating COVID-19. We describe a master protocol that will assess the efficacy of different repurposed drugs as treatments for early COVID-19 among outpatients at a high risk for severe complications. Methods: The TOGETHER Trial is an international (currently in Brazil and Africa), multi-center platform adaptive randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Patients are included if they are at least 18 years of age, have a positive antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and have an indication for high risk of disease severity, including co-morbidities, older age, or high body mass index. Eligible patients are randomized with equal chance to an investigational product (IP) or to placebo. The primary endpoint is hospitalization due to clinical worsening of COVID-19 or emergency room required observation for more than 6 hours up to 28 days after randomization. Key secondary endpoints include viral clearance, clinical improvement, hospitalization for any cause, mortality for any cause, and safety and tolerability of each IP. Scheduled interim analyses are conducted and reviewed by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC), who make recommendations on continuing or stopping each IP. The platform adaptive design go-no-go decision rules are extended to dynamically incorporate external evidence on COVID-19 interventions from ongoing independent randomized clinical trials. Discussion: Results from this trial will assist in the identification of therapeutics for COVID-19 that can easily be scaled in low- and middle-income settings. The novel methodological extension of the platform adaptive design to dynamically incorporate external evidence is one of the first of its kind and may provide highly valuable information for all COVID-19 trials going forward. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04727424 (27/01/2021)

Randomised trials at the level of the individual

In global health research, short-term, small-scale clinical trials with fixed, two-arm trial designs that generally do not allow for major changes throughout the trial are the most common study design. Building on the introductory paper of this Series, this paper discusses data-driven approaches to clinical trial research across several adaptive trial designs, as well as the master protocol framework that can help to harmonise clinical trial research efforts in global health research. We provide a general framework for more efficient trial research, and we discuss the importance of considering different study designs in the planning stage with statistical simulations. We conclude this second Series paper by discussing the methodological and operational complexity of adaptive trial designs and master protocols and the current funding challenges that could limit uptake of these approaches in global health research.

Prevalence and incidence of HIV among female sex workers and their clients: modelling the potential effects of intervention in Rwanda

BACKGROUND

Rwanda has identified several targeted HIV prevention strategies, such as promotion of condom use and provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for female sex workers (FSWs). Given this country's limited resources, understanding how the HIV epidemic will be affected by these strategies is crucial.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate the effects of targeted strategies to FSWs on the HIV prevalence/incidence in Rwanda from 2017 to 2027. Our model consists of the six states: HIV-; HIV+ undiagnosed/diagnosed pre-ART; HIV+ diagnosed with/without ART; and death. We considered three populations: FSWs, sex clients and the general population. For the period 2017-2027, the HIV epidemic among each of these population was estimated using Rwanda's demographic, sexual risk behaviour and HIV-associated morbidity and mortality data.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2027, with no changes in the current condom and ART use, the overall number of people living with HIV is expected to increase from 344,971 to 402,451. HIV incidence will also decrease from 1.36 to 1.20 100 person-years. By 2027, a 30% improvement in consistent condom use among FSWs will result in absolute reduction of HIV prevalence among FSWs, sex clients and the general population by 7.86%, 5.97% and 0.17%, respectively. While recurring HIV testing and improving the ART coverage mildly reduced the prevalence/incidence among FSWs and sex clients, worsening the two (shown by our worst-case scenario) will result in an increase in the HIV prevalence/incidence among FSWs and sex clients. Introduction of PrEP to FSWs in 2019 will reduce the HIV incidence among FSWs by 1.28%.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued efforts toward improving condom and ART use will be critical for Rwanda to continue their HIV epidemic control. Implementing a targeted intervention strategy in PrEP for FSWs will reduce the HIV epidemic in this high-risk population.

Mental health interventions for persons living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Addressing the intersection between mental health and HIV is critical for the wellbeing of persons living with HIV (PLWH). This systematic review synthesized the literature on mental health interventions for PLWH in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to determine intervention components and explore their relationship with intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

We included only controlled clinical trials of interventions aiming to improve the mental health of PLWH. We conducted a search in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EMBASE for eligible studies describing the evaluation of interventions for mental health problems among PLWH in LMICs published through August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened references in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for references meeting title/abstract criteria.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 30 eligible articles representing 6477 PLWH who were assigned to either the intervention arm (n = 3182) or control arm (n = 3346). The mental health interventions evaluated were psychological (n = 17, 56.67%), pharmacological (n = 6, 20.00%), combined psychological and pharmacological (n = 1, 3.33%) and complementary/alternative treatments (n = 6, 20.00%). The mental health problems targeted were depression (n = 22, 73.33 %), multiple psychological symptoms (n = 1, 3.33%), alcohol and substance use problems (n = 4, 13.33%), post-traumatic stress disorder (n = 1, 3.33%) and HIV-related neuro-cognitive impairment (n = 2, 6.67%). Studies of interventions with significant effects had significantly a higher number of active ingredients than those without significant effects [3.41 (2.24) vs. 1.84 (1.46) Mean (SD)] [Mean difference = -1.56, 95% CI = -3.03 to -0.09, p = 0.037].

CONCLUSIONS

There continue to be advances in mental health interventions for PLWH with mental illness in LMICs. However, more research is needed to elucidate how intervention components lead to intervention effectiveness. We recommend scale up of culturally appropriate interventions that have been successfully evaluated in low- and middle-income countries.

Moving forward in clinical research with master protocols

With billions of dollars in research and development (R&D) funding continuing to be invested, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become into a singular focus for the scientific community. However, the collective response from the scientific communities have seen poor return on investment, particularly for therapeutic research for COVID-19, revealing the existing weaknesses and inefficiencies of the clinical trial enterprise. In this article, we argue for the importance of structural changes to existing research programs for clinical trials in light of the lessons learned from COVID-19.

How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health

COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding.

Urgently seeking efficiency and sustainability of clinical trials in global health

This paper shows the scale of global health research and the context in which we frame the subsequent papers in the Series. In this Series paper, we provide a historical perspective on clinical trial research by revisiting the 1948 streptomycin trial for pulmonary tuberculosis, which was the first documented randomised clinical trial in the English language, and we discuss its close connection with global health. We describe the current state of clinical trial research globally by providing an overview of clinical trials that have been registered in the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry since 2010. We discuss challenges with current trial planning and designs that are often used in clinical trial research undertaken in low-income and middle-income countries, as an overview of the global health trials landscape. Finally, we discuss the importance of collaborative work in global health research towards generating sustainable and culturally appropriate research environments.

Child mortality associated with maternal HIV status: a retrospective analysis in Rwanda, 2005-2015

INTRODUCTION

Child mortality remains highest in regions of the world most affected by HIV/AIDS. The aim of this study was to assess child mortality rates in relation to maternal HIV status from 2005 to 2015, the period of rapid HIV treatment scale-up in Rwanda.

METHODS

We used data from the 2005, 2010 and 2015 Rwanda Demographic Health Surveys to derive under-2 mortality rates by survey year and mother's HIV status and to build a multivariable logistic regression model to establish the association of independent predictors of under-2 mortality stratified by mother's HIV status.

RESULTS

In total, 12 010 live births were reported by mothers in the study period. Our findings show a higher mortality among children born to mothers with HIV compared with HIV negative mothers in 2005 (216.9 vs 100.7 per 1000 live births) and a significant reduction in mortality for both groups in 2015 (72.0 and 42.4 per 1000 live births, respectively). In the pooled reduced multivariable model, the odds of child mortality was higher among children born to mothers with HIV, (adjusted OR, AOR 2.09; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.78). The odds of child mortality were reduced in 2010 (AOR 0.69; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81) and 2015 (AOR 0.35; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.44) compared with 2005. Other independent predictors of under-2 mortality included living in smaller families of 1-2 members (AOR 5.25; 95% CI 3.59 to 7.68), being twin (AOR 4.93; 95% CI 3.51 to 6.92) and being offspring from mothers not using contraceptives at the time of the survey (AOR 1.6; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.99). Higher education of mothers (completed primary school: (AOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.87) and secondary or higher education: (AOR 0.53; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74)) was also associated with reduced child mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows an important decline in under-2 child mortality among children born to both mothers with and without HIV in Rwanda over a 10-year span.

Towards elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Rwanda: a nested case-control study of risk factors for transmission

BACKGROUND

Mother-to-child HIV transmission (MTCT) has substantially declined since the scale-up of prevention programs around the world, including Rwanda. To achieve full elimination of MTCT, it is important to understand the risk factors associated with residual HIV transmission, defined as MTCT at the population-level that still occurs despite universal access to PMTCT.

METHODS

We performed a case control study of children born from mothers with HIV with known vital status at 18 months from birth, who were followed in three national cohorts between October and December 2013, 2014, and 2015 in Rwanda. Children with HIV were matched in a ratio of 1:2 with HIV-uninfected children and a conditional logistic regression model was used to investigate risk factors for MTCT.

RESULTS

In total, 84 children with HIV were identified and matched with 164 non-infected children. The median age of mothers from both groups was 29 years (interquartile range (IQR): 24-33). Of these mothers, 126 (51.4 %) initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) before their pregnancy on record. In a multivariable regression analysis, initiation of ART in the third trimester (Adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]: 9.25; 95 % Confidence Interval [95 % CI]: 2.12-40.38) and during labour or post-partum (aOR: 8.87; 95 % CI: 1.92-40.88), compared to initiation of ART before pregnancy, increased the risk of MTCT. Similarly, offspring of single mothers (aOR: 7.15; 95 % CI: 1.15-44.21), and absence of postpartum neonatal ART prophylaxis (aOR: 7.26; 95 % CI: 1.66-31.59) were factors significantly associated with MTCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Late ART initiation for PMTCT and lack of postpartum infant prophylaxis are still the most important risk factors to explain MTCT in the era of universal access. Improved early attendance at antenatal care, early ART initiation, and enhancing the continuum of care especially for single mothers is crucial for MTCT elimination in Rwanda.

Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

Clinical Trial Data Sharing for COVID-19-Related Research

This paper aims to provide a perspective on data sharing practices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific community has made several important inroads in the fight against COVID-19, and there are over 2500 clinical trials registered globally. Within the context of the rapidly changing pandemic, we are seeing a large number of trials conducted without results being made available. It is likely that a plethora of trials have stopped early, not for statistical reasons but due to lack of feasibility. Trials stopped early for feasibility are, by definition, statistically underpowered and thereby prone to inconclusive findings. Statistical power is not necessarily linear with the total sample size, and even small reductions in patient numbers or events can have a substantial impact on the research outcomes. Given the profusion of clinical trials investigating identical or similar treatments across different geographical and clinical contexts, one must also consider that the likelihood of a substantial number of false-positive and false-negative trials, emerging with the increasing overall number of trials, adds to public perceptions of uncertainty. This issue is complicated further by the evolving nature of the pandemic, wherein baseline assumptions on control group risk factors used to develop sample size calculations are far more challenging than those in the case of well-documented diseases. The standard answer to these challenges during nonpandemic settings is to assess each trial for statistical power and risk-of-bias and then pool the reported aggregated results using meta-analytic approaches. This solution simply will not suffice for COVID-19. Even with random-effects meta-analysis models, it will be difficult to adjust for the heterogeneity of different trials with aggregated reported data alone, especially given the absence of common data standards and outcome measures. To date, several groups have proposed structures and partnerships for data sharing. As COVID-19 has forced reconsideration of policies, processes, and interests, this is the time to advance scientific cooperation and shift the clinical research enterprise toward a data-sharing culture to maximize our response in the service of public health.

The Critical Need for Pooled Data on Coronavirus Disease 2019 in African Children: An AFREhealth Call for Action Through Multicountry Research Collaboration

Globally, there are prevailing knowledge gaps in the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among children and adolescents; and these gaps are especially wide in African countries. The availability of robust age-disaggregated data is a critical first step in improving knowledge on disease burden and manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among children. Furthermore, it is essential to improve understanding of SARS-CoV-2 interactions with comorbidities and coinfections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria, sickle cell disease, and malnutrition, which are highly prevalent among children in sub-Saharan Africa. The African Forum for Research and Education in Health (AFREhealth) COVID-19 Research Collaboration on Children and Adolescents is conducting studies across Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa to address existing knowledge gaps. This consortium is expected to generate key evidence to inform clinical practice and public health policy-making for COVID-19 while concurrently addressing other major diseases affecting children in African countries.

The Rise and Fall of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment and Prevention of COVID-19

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has received great attention, and most notably, the enthusiasm for HCQ has been one of politicization rather than science. Laboratory studies and case series published early in the pandemic supported its efficacy. The scientific community raced to conduct observational and randomized evaluations of the drug in all stages of the disease, including prophylaxis, early treatment, and advanced disease. Yet a divisive media response affected recruitment, funding, and subsequent enthusiasm for continuing scientific investigations. Of the more than 300 HCQ trials registered, fewer than 50% report having recruited any patients, and most trials might fail to achieve any useful portions of their intended sample size. Multiple observational studies and two large randomized trials have demonstrated HCQ does not offer efficacy against COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. Prophylaxis studies and early treatment studies provided heterogeneous results and are plagued by low event rates and poor study outcome monitoring. Emerging high-quality evaluations of prophylaxis and early treatment do not support a role for HCQ in these populations. The story of HCQ for COVID-19 has followed a pattern of initial enthusiasm supported by poor quality evidence, followed by disappointment based on more rigorous evaluations. The experience of HCQ in the COVID-19 era calls for the depoliticization of science away from media glare.

The Landscape of Emerging Randomized Clinical Trial Evidence for COVID-19 Disease Stages: A Systematic Review of Global Trial Registries

Purpose

A multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have emerged in response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the distribution of trials among various settings is important to guide future research priorities and efforts. The purpose of this review was to describe the emerging evidence base of COVID-19 RCTs by stages of disease progression, from pre-exposure to hospitalization.

Methods

We collated trial data across international registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Clinical Research Information Service; EU Clinical Trials Register; Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials; Japan Primary Registries Network; German Clinical Trials Register (up to 7 October 2020). Active COVID-19 RCTs in international registries were eligible for inclusion. We extracted trial status, intervention(s), control, sample size, and clinical context to generate descriptive frequencies, network diagram illustrations, and statistical analyses including odds ratios and the Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results

Our search identified 11503 clinical trials registered for COVID-19 and identified 2388 RCTs. After excluding 45 suspended RCTs and 480 trials with unclear or unreported disease stages, 1863 active RCTs were included and categorized into four broad disease stages: pre-exposure (n=107); post-exposure (n=208); outpatient treatment (n=266); hospitalization, including the intensive care unit (n=1376). Across all disease stages, most trials had two arms (n=1500/1863, 80.52%), most often included (hydroxy)chloroquine (n=271/1863, 14.55%) and were US-based (n=408/1863, 21.90%). US-based trials had lower odds of including (hydroxy)chloroquine than trials in other countries (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45–0.90) and similar odds of having two arms compared to other geographic regions (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80–1.38).

Conclusion

There is a marked difference in the number of trials across settings, with limited studies on non-hospitalized persons. Focus on pre- and post-exposure, and outpatients, is worthwhile as a means of reducing infections and lessening the health, social, and economic burden of COVID-19.

The time to act is now: pseudo-systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify any medical or public health rationale for claims that the time to act is now.

DESIGN

Pseudo-systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that included the claim "time is now" in the title, with or without exclamation marks. No language or date restriction was applied.

RESULTS

512 articles were included for review. No relationship was identified between time to act and disease burden, severity, or specialty. Claims that the time to act was Christmas were almost entirely without basis. A clustering of claims that it is time to act in the first quarter of the year suggested a possible association with New Year's resolutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Now is as good a time as any.

Reporting and design of randomized controlled trials for COVID-19: A systematic review

Background

The 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).

Purpose

The 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 sources

We conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.

Study selection

After 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 extraction

Trial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.

Data synthesis

Of 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

Early Treatment of COVID-19 Disease: A Missed Opportunity

Antivirals have demonstrated efficacy in treating other infectious diseases in early stages of disease, reducing morbidity, mortality, and the likelihood of onward transmission. At the time of writing, more than 1900 clinical trials are registered globally to assess the efficacy and safety of candidate therapeutics for COVID-19. The majority of these trials are designed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of candidate therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19 to prevent death among populations of hospitalized patients with advanced disease. Yet, emerging epidemiological evidence now indicates that the majority of those infected with the SARS-CoV-2, while still infectious, experience minimal or mild disease symptomology. Like HIV and hepatitis C that pioneered treatment as prevention, there is a missed opportunity for trials of early pharmaceutical intervention for COVID-19 disease evaluating not only reductions in morbidity and mortality but also transmissibility. We discuss this clinical research gap within an historical context of viral treatment as prevention for HIV and hepatitis C, and comment on the challenges and opportunities for clinical research of candidate therapeutics for early COVID-19 disease.

Correction to: Early Treatment of COVID-19 Disease: A Missed Opportunity

In the Original Publication of the article, Copyright license type was erroneously published.

Interventions to improve birth outcomes of pregnant women living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Improving the health of pregnant women is important to prevent adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birthweight. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of interventions under the domains of micronutrient, balanced energy protein, deworming, maternal education, and water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) for their effects on these adverse birth outcomes.

Methods: For this network meta-analysis, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions provided to pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We searched for reports published until September 17, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. We extracted data from eligible studies for study characteristics, interventions, participants’ characteristics at baseline, and birth outcomes. We compared effects on preterm birth (<37 gestational week), low birthweight (LBW; <2500 g), and birthweight (continuous) using studies conducted in LMICs.

Results: Our network meta-analyses were based on 101 RCTs (132 papers) pertaining to 206,531 participants. Several micronutrients and balanced energy food supplement interventions demonstrated effectiveness over standard-of-care. For instance, versus standard-of-care, micronutrient supplements for pregnant women, such as iron and calcium, decreased risks of preterm birth (iron: RR=0.70, 95% credible interval [Crl] 0.47, 1.01; calcium: RR=0.76, 95%Crl 0.56, 0.99). Daily intake of 1500kcal of local food decreased the risks of preterm birth (RR=0.36, 95%Crl 0.16, 0.77) and LBW (RR=0.17, 95%Crl 0.09, 0.29), respectively when compared to standard-of-care. Educational and deworming interventions did not show improvements in birth outcomes, and no WASH intervention trials reported on these adverse birth outcomes.

Conclusion: We found several pregnancy interventions that improve birth outcomes. However, most clinical trials have only evaluated interventions under a single domain (e.g. micronutrients) even though the causes of adverse birth outcomes are multi-faceted. There is a need to combine interventions that of different domains as packages and test for their effectiveness.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110446; registered on 17 October 2018.

Accelerating Clinical Evaluation of Repurposed Combination Therapies for COVID-19

As the global COVID-19 pandemic continues, unabated and clinical trials demonstrate limited effective pharmaceutical interventions, there is a pressing need to accelerate treatment evaluations. Among options for accelerated development is the evaluation of drug combinations in the absence of prior monotherapy data. This approach is appealing for a number of reasons. First, combining two or more drugs with related or complementary therapeutic effects permits a multipronged approach addressing the variable pathways of the disease. Second, if an individual component of a combination offers a therapeutic effect, then in the absence of antagonism, a trial of combination therapy should still detect individual efficacy. Third, this strategy is time saving. Rather than taking a stepwise approach to evaluating monotherapies, this strategy begins with testing all relevant therapeutic options. Finally, given the severity of the current pandemic and the absence of treatment options, the likelihood of detecting a treatment effect with combination therapy maintains scientific enthusiasm for evaluating repurposed treatments. Antiviral combination selection can be facilitated by insights regarding SARS-CoV-2 pathophysiology and cell cycle dynamics, supported by infectious disease and clinical pharmacology expert advice. We describe a clinical evaluation strategy using adaptive combination platform trials to rapidly test combination therapies to treat COVID-19.