Deficiencies in the Designs and Interventions of COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Challenges of consolidating evidence collected during a pandemic and lessons for the future

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the challenges encountered when gathering rapidly synthesized evidence in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

In this article, we describe the challenges encountered when we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of treatments for severe COVID-19. The methods of the SLR are described in full, to show the context of our objectives. Then we use the results of the SLR to demonstrate the problems of producing synthesized evidence in this setting.

RESULTS

Various challenges were identified during this SLR. These were primarily a result of heterogeneity in the study methodology of eligible studies. Definitions of the patient populations and outcome measurements were highly variable and the majority of studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, preventing quantitative synthesis of the collated evidence.

CONCLUSION

Consolidating evidence from RCTs evaluating COVID-19 interventions was problematic. Guidance is needed for scenarios with high rapid output in primary research.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.

RESULTS

We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020192095.

Rethinking the role of Research Ethics Committees in the light of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic

Research Ethics Committees (RECs)—or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), as they are known in the US—were created about 50 years ago to independently assess the ethical acceptability of research projects involving human subjects, their fundamental role being the protection of the dignity and rights of research participants. In this paper we develop some critical reflections about the current situation of RECs. Our starting point is the definition of the role they should ideally play, a role that should necessarily include a collaborative approach and the focus on the ethics component of the review. This ideal is unfortunately quite far from reality: inadequacies in the functioning of RECs have been discussed for decades, along with reform proposals. Both in the US and in the European Union (EU), reforms that aim at the centralization of the review process were recently approved. Even though these reforms were needed, they nonetheless raise concerns. We focus on two such concerns, related in particular to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014: the risk of narrowing the scope of the ethics review and that of disregarding the local context. We argue that the COVID‐19 pandemic paved the way for the transition towards the centralized model and that an analysis of its impact on the research review process could provide some interesting insights into possible shortcomings of this new model. We conclude by identifying three objectives that define the role of a REC, objectives that any reform should preserve.

Implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation transforms the ethics committee systems and endangers ethical standards

The upcoming Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (Regulation), which will replace the current Clinical Trial Directive at the end of 2021, has triggered a significant reform of research ethics committee systems in Europe. Changes related to ethics review of clinical trials in the EU were considered to be essential to create a more favourable environment to conduct clinical trials in the EU. The concern is, however, that the role of the research ethics committees will weaken in at least some of the Member States because the new Regulation allows narrowing down the scope of ethics review as compared with the currently valid Clinical Trial Directive. Although the new Regulation may lead to faster approval procedures for clinical trials, which is especially relevant in the context of pandemics, high-quality ethics reviews integrating methodological aspects of a clinical trial should nevertheless be ensured. To maintain high research ethics standards as well as to foster measures to mitigate potential negative consequences of the reform, it is therefore of vital importance to start debating and sharing the reflections about the potential consequences of these transformations and trends as soon as possible.