Characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: cross-sectional analysis

Teaching critical thinking about health information and choices in secondary schools: human-centred design of digital resources

Background

Learning to thinking critically about health information and choices can protect people from unnecessary suffering, harm, and resource waste. Earlier work revealed that children can learn these skills, but printing costs and curricula compatibility remain important barriers to school implementation. We aimed to develop a set of digital learning resources for students to think critically about health that were suitable for use in Kenyan, Rwandan, and Ugandan secondary schools.

Methods

We conducted work in two phases collaborating with teachers, students, schools, and national curriculum development offices using a human-centred design approach. First, we conducted context analyses and an overview of teaching strategies, prioritised content and collected examples. Next, we developed lessons and guidance iteratively, informed by data from user-testing, individual and group interviews, and school pilots.

Results

Final resources include online lesson plans, teachers' guide, and extra resources, with lesson plans in two modes, for use in a classroom equipped with a blackboard/flip-chart and a projector. The resources are accessible offline for use when electricity or Internet is lacking. Teachers preferred the projector mode, as it provided structure and a focal point for class attention. Feedback was largely positive, with teachers and students appreciating the learning and experiencing it as relevant. Four main challenges included time to teach lessons; incorrect comprehension; identifying suitable examples; and technical, logistical, and behavioural challenges with a student-computer mode that we piloted. We resolved challenges by simplifying and combining lessons; increasing opportunities for review and assessment; developing teacher training materials, creating a searchable set of examples; and deactivating the student-computer mode.

Conclusion

Using a human-centred design approach, we created digital resources for teaching secondary school students to think critically about health actions and for training teachers. Be smart about your health resources are open access and can be translated or adapted to other settings.

Characteristics of clinical trials of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2014 and 2021

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the ideal and mandatory type of study to verify the effect and safety of a drug. Our aim is to examine the fundamental characteristics of interventional clinical trials on influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This is a cross-sectional study of RCTs on influenza and RSV in humans between 2014 and 2021 registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 516 studies were identified: 94 for RSV, 423 for influenza, and 1 for both viruses. There were 51 RCTs of RSV vaccines (54.3%) and 344 (81.3%) for influenza virus vaccines (p < 0.001). Twelve (12.8%) RCTs for RSV were conducted only with women, and 6 were conducted only with pregnant women; for RCTs for influenza, 4 (0.9%) and 3, respectively. For RSV, 29 (31%) of the RCTs were exclusive to people under 5 years of age, and 21 (5%) for influenza virus (p < 0.001). For RSV, there are no RCTs exclusively for people older than or equal to 65 years and no phase 4 trials. RCTs on influenza virus and RSV has focused on vaccines. For the influenza virus, research has been consolidated, and for RSV, research is still in the development phase and directed at children and pregnant women.

Estimating the effect of COVID-19 on trial design characteristics: a registered report

There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis.

Competition for recruitment in SARS-CoV-2 Trials in the United States: a longitudinal cohort analysis

OBJECTIVE

Competition among trials for patient enrollment can impede recruitment. We hypothesized that this occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, when an unprecedented number of clinical trials were launched. We performed a simple and multivariable regression analysis evaluating the relationship between the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 investigational trial sites within each USA state with unsuccessful patient-participant recruitment and: (i) the proportion of cases required to reach state recruitment goals; (ii) state population based on data from the US Census; and, (iii) number of trial sites per state.

RESULTS

Our study included 151 clinical trials. The proportion of trials with successful recruitment was 72.19% (109 of 151 trials). We did not find a significant relationship between unsuccessful patient-participant recruitment, state recruitment goals, state population or the number of trial sites per state in both our simple and multivariable regression analyses. Our results do not suggest that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, competition for patient-participants impeded successful recruitment in SARS-CoV-2 trials. This may reflect the unique circumstances of the first few months of the pandemic in the United States, in which the number and location of SARS-CoV-2 cases was sufficient to meet trial recruitment requirements, despite the large number of trials launched.

Trends and variation in data quality and availability on the European Union Clinical Trials Register: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The European Union Clinical Trials Register is a public facing portal containing information on trials of medicinal products conducted under the purview of the European Union regulatory system. As of September 2021, the registry holds information on over 40,000 trials. Given its distinct regulatory purpose, and results reporting requirements, the European Union Clinical Trials Register should be a valuable open-source hub for trial information. Past work examining the European Union Clinical Trials Register has suggested that data quality on the registry may be lacking. We therefore set out to examine the quality and availability of trial data on the registry with a focus on areas that fall under the authority of regulators in each European Union/European Economic Area country.

METHODS

Using data scraped from the full European Union Clinical Trials Register public dataset, we examined the extent of issues with three areas of trial data availability linked to European Union regulations. We examined whether there is evidence for missing registration of protocols in the public database, whether information on the completion of clinical trials is being made available and how often the results of trials are posted to the registry. We assessed each area overall, and examined variation between national regulators and over time.

RESULTS

Major issues with the availability of expected protocols and information on trial completion were focused in a few countries. Overall, when comparing enrolment countries from tabular results to available registrations, 26,932 of 31,118 (86.5%) expected protocols were available and 22 of 30 (73%) countries had over 90% of expected protocols available. The majority of missing protocols, totalling 2764 (66%), were from just three countries: France, Norway and Poland. Evidence for this issue is further supported by data on trends in new registrations by country over time. Low availability of data on trial completion is also most pronounced in a minority of countries, like Spain and the Netherlands, with consistent trends for missingness over time. Finally, overall results availability is substantially worse among the 23,623 trials with a single registered European Union protocol (n = 6259, 26.5%) compared to 13,897 of those taking place in multiple countries (n = 8423, 60.6%). Reporting for single-protocol trials was consistently low across both time and location.

CONCLUSION

Deficiencies in the public availability of trial protocols, trial completion information and summary results complicate the utility of the European Union Clinical Trials Register for research, transparency and accountability efforts. Users of the registry would benefit from a more complete and accurate accounting of the European research environment via the official European Union registry. We recommend regulators at the national and pan-national level undertake routine audits of approved trials to ensure national-level issues are proactively and transparently identified, documented and addressed.

Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review

The emergency state caused by COVID-19 saw the use of immunomodulators despite the absence of robust research. To date, the results of relatively few randomized controlled trials have been published, and methodological approaches are riddled with bias and heterogeneity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib have gained Emergency Use Authorizations and tentative recommendations for their use in clinical practice alone or in combination with other therapies. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are predominating the management of non-hospitalized patients, while the inpatient setting is seeing the use of convalescent plasma, baricitinib, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and corticosteroids, as applicable. Available clinical data also suggest the potential clinical benefit of the early administration of blood-derived products (e.g. convalescent plasma, non-SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobins) and the blockade of factors implicated in the hyperinflammatory state of severe COVID-19 (Interleukin 1 and 6; Janus Kinase). Immune therapies seem to have a protective effect and using immunomodulators alone or in combination with viral replication inhibitors and other treatment modalities might prevent progression into severe COVID-19 disease, cytokine storm and death. Future trials should address existing gaps and reshape the landscape of COVID-19 management.

Executable network of SARS-CoV-2-host interaction predicts drug combination treatments

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed healthcare systems globally to a breaking point. The urgent need for effective and affordable COVID-19 treatments calls for repurposing combinations of approved drugs. The challenge is to identify which combinations are likely to be most effective and at what stages of the disease. Here, we present the first disease-stage executable signalling network model of SARS-CoV-2-host interactions used to predict effective repurposed drug combinations for treating early- and late stage severe disease. Using our executable model, we performed in silico screening of 9870 pairs of 140 potential targets and have identified nine new drug combinations. Camostat and Apilimod were predicted to be the most promising combination in effectively supressing viral replication in the early stages of severe disease and were validated experimentally in human Caco-2 cells. Our study further demonstrates the power of executable mechanistic modelling to enable rapid pre-clinical evaluation of combination therapies tailored to disease progression. It also presents a novel resource and expandable model system that can respond to further needs in the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on behavioural and psychological symptoms in home-dwelling people with dementia: a prospective cohort study (PAN.DEM)

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study (PAN.DEM) nested within the halted parent trial (LIVE@Home.Path).

SETTING

Households in Norway immediate before and 6-9 weeks into the COVID-19 restrictions.

PARTICIPANTS

104 dyads (persons with mild to moderate dementia aged ≥65 and their informal carers) completed both prepandemic and pandemic assessments, among 237 in the parent trial. Mini-Mental Status Examination score 15-26 or Functional Assessment Staging score 3-7 covered dementia severity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-12) total (range 0-144), psychosis (range 0-24), hyperactive behaviour (range 0-60) and mood subsyndrome (range 0-48) scores; Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) total score (range 0-38).

RESULTS

We found an overall increase in BPSD by NPI-12 total score comparing prepandemic to pandemic levels (median 16 IQR (4.5-29) to 20 (7-32.5), p=0.03) over a mean of 86 days (SD 19). NPI-12 total score worsened in 57 (55%) of people with dementia and was associated with postponed or averted contacts with healthcare professionals (logistic regression, OR 3.96, 95% CI 1.05 to 14.95). Psychosis subsyndrome levels increased (0 (0-3) to 0.5 (0-6), p=0.01) in 37 (36%) persons; this worsening was associated with partial insight (9.57, 1.14 to 80.71) and reduced informal carer contact (4.45, 1.01 to 19.71). Moreover, depressive symptoms increased as assessed by CSDD total score (5 (3-9) to 7 (4-12), p=0.01) and worsened for 56 (54%), which was inversely associated with psychotropic drugs on-demand (0.16, 0.03 to 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

BPSD worsened during the first months of the COVID-19 restrictions, most pronounced for psychosis and depression. These BPSD exacerbations have implications for pandemic policies, emphasising that restrictions must balance COVID-19 morbidity and mortality against dementia deterioration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04043364; Results.

How informative were early SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention trials? a longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Background

Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Methods

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we created a cohort of Phase 1/2, Phase 2, Phase 2/3 and Phase 3 SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention efficacy trials that were initiated from 2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30 using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. We excluded trials evaluating behavioural interventions and natural products, which are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We evaluated trials on 3 criteria of informativeness: potential redundancy (comparing trial phase, type, patient-participant characteristics, treatment regimen, comparator arms and primary outcome), trials design (according to the recommendations set-out in the May 2020 FDA guidance document on SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention trials) and feasibility of patient-participant recruitment (based on timeliness and success of recruitment).

Results

We included all 500 eligible trials in our cohort, 58% of which were Phase 2 and 84.8% were directed towards the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Close to one third of trials met all three criteria and were deemed informative (29.9% (95% Confidence Interval 23.7–36.9)). The proportion of potentially redundant trials in our cohort was 4.1%. Over half of the trials in our cohort (56.2%) did not meet our criteria for high quality trial design. The proportion of trials with infeasible patient-participant recruitment was 22.6%.

Conclusions

Less than one third of COVID-19 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during the first six months met all three criteria for informativeness. Shortcomings in trial design, recruitment feasibility and redundancy reflect longstanding weaknesses in the clinical research enterprise that were likely amplified by the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.

Characteristics analysis for clinical study design relating to COVID-19 based on the database of ClinicalTrials.gov

Background and Objective

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak is currently ravaging populations worldwide. Many studies were registered and conducted in rapid response to the epidemic, but how to choose the proper design for clinical trials remains the main concern. This study aimed to determine the fundamental characteristics of study design during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide references for other emerging infectious diseases.

Methods

We searched the database of ClinicalTrials.gov with the keyword “COVID-19” and compared the results with the design features of other conventional studies except for COVID-19.

Results

From January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, 55,334 trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Of all the registered trials, 6,408 were related to COVID-19 (11.58%). There were significant differences in the proportion of observational studies between COVID-19 (43.48%) and others (23.27%). The completion rate of observational trials and interventional trials in COVID-19 was 29.04% and 25.84%, respectively. COVID-19 trials showed a higher rate of completion than others (P<0.01). The time distribution and trend of observational studies and interventional studies varied considerably.

Conclusion

Appropriately designed trials can help to improve research efficiency and reduce the possibility of research failure. In addition to randomized controlled trials, observational and single-armed studies are also worth considering.

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study

OBJECTIVE

To examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The COVID-19 clinical trial landscape.

PARTICIPANTS

285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (ie, by journal article, preprint or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route.

RESULTS

Following automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n=25) followed by journal articles (n=18), and results on a registry (n=2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 trials completed during the first 6 months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared with non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data are accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for the next phase of the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials study expanding both our trial population and follow-up time.

Clinical research methodology process: what is changing with COVID-19?

The repercussions of the pandemic in progress on clinical research have been the systematic interruption of ongoing research and the explosion of fragmented, uncoordinated, often technically insufficient anti-COVID-19 research. Networks of expert centres have emerged setting up well-structured research, adopting much more efficient and aggressive designs than traditional ones. Adaptive designs, characterized by flexibility and mouldability even in the course of studies, which is essential in an epidemic with thousands of simultaneous studies aimed at the same objectives. Some studies are structured with networks of hospitals around guidance centres, such as RECOVERY (Oxford University, UK) and SOLIDARITY (WHO, 30 countries); others with networks of expert centres mostly organized in a combined model: some expert centres test new molecules in Phase 2 in a limited number of patients, and orient promising ones towards connected networks for Phase 3. Cortisones and tentatively cytokines are acquired in the official recommendation. Another emerging model is the pragmatic trial, also called, more expressively, 'remote' or 'virtual'. So it is in fact: the web replaces the direct link between patients and doctors/research operators (CROs included), behind which there will be omnipresent big-techs.

Understanding and predicting COVID-19 clinical trial completion vs. cessation

As of March 30 2021, over 5,193 COVID-19 clinical trials have been registered through Clinicaltrial.gov. Among them, 191 trials were terminated, suspended, or withdrawn (indicating the cessation of the study). On the other hand, 909 trials have been completed (indicating the completion of the study). In this study, we propose to study underlying factors of COVID-19 trial completion vs. cessation, and design predictive models to accurately predict whether a COVID-19 trial may complete or cease in the future. We collect 4,441 COVID-19 trials from ClinicalTrial.gov to build a testbed, and design four types of features to characterize clinical trial administration, eligibility, study information, criteria, drug types, study keywords, as well as embedding features commonly used in the state-of-the-art machine learning. Our study shows that drug features and study keywords are most informative features, but all four types of features are essential for accurate trial prediction. By using predictive models, our approach achieves more than 0.87 AUC (Area Under the Curve) score and 0.81 balanced accuracy to correctly predict COVID-19 clinical trial completion vs. cessation. Our research shows that computational methods can deliver effective features to understand difference between completed vs. ceased COVID-19 trials. In addition, such models can also predict COVID-19 trial status with satisfactory accuracy, and help stakeholders better plan trials and minimize costs.

Making trials part of good clinical care: lessons from the RECOVERY trial

When COVID-19 hit the UK in early 2020, there were no known treatments for a condition that results in the death of around one in four patients hospitalised with this disease. Around the world, possible treatments were administered to huge numbers of patients, without any reliable assessments of safety and efficacy. The rapid generation of high-quality evidence was vital. RECOVERY is a streamlined, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, which was set up in response to this challenge. As of April 2021, over 39,000 patients have been enrolled from 178 hospital sites in the UK. Within 100 days of its initiation, RECOVERY demonstrated that dexamethasone improves survival for patients with severe disease; a result that was rapidly implemented in the UK and internationally saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Importantly, it also showed that other widely used treatments (such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) have no meaningful benefit for hospitalised patients. This was only possible through randomisation of large numbers of patients and the adoption of streamlined and pragmatic procedures focused on quality, together with widespread collaboration focused on a single goal. RECOVERY illustrates how clinical trials and healthcare can be integrated, even in a pandemic. This approach provides new opportunities to generate the evidence needed for high-quality healthcare not only for a pandemic but for the many other conditions that place a burden on patients and the healthcare system.

Developing a rapid evidence response to COVID-19: The collaborative approach of Saskatchewan, Canada

Introduction

The 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

The urgency of COVID‐19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

Multicentre randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

A novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4-7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

National Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408).

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) during the early pandemic period. It is well‐known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID‐19 patients treated with these drugs.

Methods

We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta‐analyses were conducted using a random‐effects model.

Results

Forty‐seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%–18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%–14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56–4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16–9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

How the clinical research community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of the COVID-19 clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

In the past few months, a large number of clinical studies on the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been initiated worldwide to find effective therapeutics, vaccines, and preventive strategies for COVID-19. In this study, we aim to understand the landscape of COVID-19 clinical research and identify the issues that may cause recruitment difficulty or reduce study generalizability.

METHODS

We analyzed 3765 COVID-19 studies registered in the largest public registry-ClinicalTrials.gov, leveraging natural language processing (NLP) and using descriptive, association, and clustering analyses. We first characterized COVID-19 studies by study features such as phase and tested intervention. We then took a deep dive and analyzed their eligibility criteria to understand whether these studies: (1) considered the reported underlying health conditions that may lead to severe illnesses, and (2) excluded older adults, either explicitly or implicitly, which may reduce the generalizability of these studies to the older adults population.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 2295 interventional studies and 1470 observational studies. Most trials did not explicitly exclude older adults with common chronic conditions. However, known risk factors such as diabetes and hypertension were considered by less than 5% of trials based on their trial description. Pregnant women were excluded by 34.9% of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most COVID-19 clinical studies included both genders and older adults. However, risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and pregnancy were under-represented, likely skewing the population that was sampled. A careful examination of existing COVID-19 studies can inform future COVID-19 trial design towards balanced internal validity and generalizability.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and autoimmunity

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic (coronavirus disease, COVID-19), etiologically related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2), has once again reawakened healthcare professionals’ interest towards new clinical and conceptual issues of human immunology and immunopathology. An unprecedented number of clinical trials and fundamental studies of epidemiology, virology, immunology and molecular biology, of the COVID-19 clinical course polymorphism and pharmacotherapy have been conducted within one year since the outbreak of 2019 pandemic, bringing together scientists of almost all biological and physicians of almost all medical specialties. Their joint efforts have resulted in elaboration of several types of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and, in general, fashioning of more rational approaches to patient management. Also important for COVID-19 management were all clinical trials of biologics and “targeted” anti-inflammatory drugs modulating intracellular cytokine signaling, which have been specifically developed for treatment immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic disease (IMIRDs) over the past 20 years. It became obvious after a comprehensive analysis of the entire spectrum of clinical manifestations and immunopathological disorders in COVID-19 is accompanied by a wide range of extrapulmonary clinical and laboratory disorders, some of which are characteristic of IMIRDs and other autoimmune and auto-in-flammatory human diseases. All these phenomena substantiated the practice of anti-inflammatory drugs repurposing with off-label use of specific antirheumatic agents for treatment of COVID-19. This paper discusses potential use of glucocorticoids, biologics, JAK inhibitors, etc., blocking the effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines for treatment of COVID-19.