Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical trials with drugs

Informed Consent in COVID-19-Research: An Ethical Analysis of Clinical Studies Performed during the Pandemic

Health crises such as the current COVID-19 pandemic pose challenges to the conduct of clinical studies. Aspects of research ethics, such as obtaining informed consent (IC), can be complicated. We are concerned with whether or not the proper IC procedures were followed in the context of clinical studies at Ulm University in the years 2020 to 2022. We identified all protocols of clinical studies dealing with COVID-19 that the Research Ethics Committee of Ulm University has reviewed and voted on in the years 2020 to 2022. We then performed a thematic analysis regarding the following aspects: study type, handling of IC, type of patient information, means of communication, applied security precautions, and the approach to participants from vulnerable groups. We identified n = 98 studies that dealt with COVID-19. In n = 25 (25.51%), IC was obtained traditionally in written form, in n = 26 (26.53%) IC was waived, in n = 11 (11.22%) IC was obtained delayed, and in n = 19 (19.39%) IC was obtained by proxy. No study protocol was accepted that waived IC in case IC would have been required in times outside of pandemics. It is possible to obtain IC even in times of severe health crises. In the future, it is necessary to address in greater detail and with legal certainty which alternative methods of obtaining IC are possible and under which circumstances IC can be waived.

Patient and health practitioner views and experiences of a cancer trial before and during COVID-19: qualitative study

Background

Understanding patient and health practitioner perspectives on clinical trials can inform opportunities to enhance trial conduct and design, and therefore patient experience. Patients with haematological cancers have faced additional risk and uncertainty during the pandemic but it is unclear how they and practitioners have experienced cancer trials during this period. In the context of a haemato-oncology trial (PETReA), we compared patient and practitioner views and experiences of PETReA before and during COVID-19.

Methods

Qualitative study embedded within PETReA. Semi-structured interviews (N=41) with patients and practitioners from 16 NHS sites before (n=17) and during the first wave of COVID-19 (n=24). Analysis drew on the framework approach.

Results

Practitioners acknowledged the need for the trial to continue during the pandemic but their treatment preferences altered, becoming more pronounced for patients who had a favourable response to induction treatment, while staying unchanged for patients with a less favourable response. Practitioners commented that COVID-19 meant the evidence base for the trial arms was lacking or mixed, but that it likely increased the risks of maintenance treatment for patients with a favourable response to induction treatment. While only one participant interviewed withdrew from PETReA during the pandemic, others said they would consider withdrawing if information that they were at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 became available. During COVID-19, patients described less frequent contact with the trial team, which left some feeling less clear about their trial pathway. However, several described having in-depth, collaborative discussions with practitioners about the risks and benefits of randomisation in the context of COVID-19. Patients valued these discussions and were reassured by the emphasis practitioners placed on patients being free to withdraw if circumstances changed, and this helped patients feel comfortable about continuing in PETReA.

Conclusions

The findings point to ways trial communication can support patients to feel comfortable about continuing in a trial during uncertain times, including adopting a more in-depth, collaborative exploration of the risks and benefits of trial arms with patients and emphasising voluntariness. The results are relevant to trialists recruiting patients who are clinically extremely vulnerable or are at increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes despite being vaccinated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06453-z.

Characteristics of published/registered clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, many countries have designed clinical trials to find efficient treatments. We aimed to critically report the characteristics of all the registered and published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on COVID-19, and summarize the evaluation of potential therapies developed in various regions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases to retrieve all the relevant studies up to July 19, 2021, in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. We included all English-language published/registered RCTs on COVID-19, and excluded non-RCT, in-vitro/in-vivo, editorials, and review studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated all the records, and then analyzed by using SPSS 17.

RESULTS

Within 3018 included studies, 2801 (92.8%) and 217 (7.2%) were registered or published RCTs consisting of about 600 synthetic drugs. Herbal medicines have been studied in 23 trials (10.6%) among the published RCTs and in 357 registered RCTs (12.7%). Hydroxychloroquine 23 (10.6%) and convalescent plasma 194 (6.9%) alone or in combination with other agents were the most frequently used interventions in published and registered RCTs, respectively. Most published RCTs have been conducted in Western Pacific Region (WPRO) (50 trials, 23.0%) including 45 trials from China. Also, a greater proportion of registered RCTs have been conducted in the Region of the Americas (PAHO) (885 trials, 31.6%) including 596 RCTs from the United States (U.S). Globally, 283 registered trials have been conducted to assess new developed vaccines for COVID or previously established for other disorders.

CONCLUSION

The present study highlighted the wide range of potential therapeutic agents in published and registered COVID-19 clinical trials across a wide range of regions. However, it is urgently required to global coordination in order to conduct more well-designed trials and progress in discovering safe and effective treatments.

Medication of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir and Convalescent Plasma during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany-An Ethical Analysis

This paper aims to analyze the ethical challenges in experimental drug use during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Germany as a case study. In Germany uniform ethical guidelines were available early on nationwide, which was considered as desirable by other states to reduce uncertainties and convey a message of unity. The purpose of this ethical analysis is to assist the preparation of future guidelines on the use of medicines during public health emergencies. The use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical settings was analyzed from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy. We observed that drug safety and drug distribution during the pandemic affects all four ethical principles. We therefore recommend to establish ethical guidelines (i) to discuss experimental treatment options with patients from all population groups who are in urgent need, (ii) to facilitate the recording of patient reactions to drugs in off-label use, (iii) to expand inclusion criteria for clinical studies to avoid missing potentially negative effects on excluded groups, and (iv) to maintain sufficient access to repurposed drugs for patients with prior conditions.

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.