Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND

Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations.

METHODS

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds.

FINDINGS

The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles.

INTERPRETATION

Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND

Detailed, comprehensive, and timely reporting on population health by underlying causes of disability and premature death is crucial to understanding and responding to complex patterns of disease and injury burden over time and across age groups, sexes, and locations. The availability of disease burden estimates can promote evidence-based interventions that enable public health researchers, policy makers, and other professionals to implement strategies that can mitigate diseases. It can also facilitate more rigorous monitoring of progress towards national and international health targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. For three decades, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) has filled that need. A global network of collaborators contributed to the production of GBD 2021 by providing, reviewing, and analysing all available data. GBD estimates are updated routinely with additional data and refined analytical methods. GBD 2021 presents, for the first time, estimates of health loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The GBD 2021 disease and injury burden analysis estimated years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries using 100 983 data sources. Data were extracted from vital registration systems, verbal autopsies, censuses, household surveys, disease-specific registries, health service contact data, and other sources. YLDs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific prevalence of sequelae by their respective disability weights, for each disease and injury. YLLs were calculated by multiplying cause-age-sex-location-year-specific deaths by the standard life expectancy at the age that death occurred. DALYs were calculated by summing YLDs and YLLs. HALE estimates were produced using YLDs per capita and age-specific mortality rates by location, age, sex, year, and cause. 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for all final estimates as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles values of 500 draws. Uncertainty was propagated at each step of the estimation process. Counts and age-standardised rates were calculated globally, for seven super-regions, 21 regions, 204 countries and territories (including 21 countries with subnational locations), and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021. Here we report data for 2010 to 2021 to highlight trends in disease burden over the past decade and through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

FINDINGS

Global DALYs increased from 2·63 billion (95% UI 2·44-2·85) in 2010 to 2·88 billion (2·64-3·15) in 2021 for all causes combined. Much of this increase in the number of DALYs was due to population growth and ageing, as indicated by a decrease in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates of 14·2% (95% UI 10·7-17·3) between 2010 and 2019. Notably, however, this decrease in rates reversed during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, with increases in global age-standardised all-cause DALY rates since 2019 of 4·1% (1·8-6·3) in 2020 and 7·2% (4·7-10·0) in 2021. In 2021, COVID-19 was the leading cause of DALYs globally (212·0 million [198·0-234·5] DALYs), followed by ischaemic heart disease (188·3 million [176·7-198·3]), neonatal disorders (186·3 million [162·3-214·9]), and stroke (160·4 million [148·0-171·7]). However, notable health gains were seen among other leading communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases. Globally between 2010 and 2021, the age-standardised DALY rates for HIV/AIDS decreased by 47·8% (43·3-51·7) and for diarrhoeal diseases decreased by 47·0% (39·9-52·9). Non-communicable diseases contributed 1·73 billion (95% UI 1·54-1·94) DALYs in 2021, with a decrease in age-standardised DALY rates since 2010 of 6·4% (95% UI 3·5-9·5). Between 2010 and 2021, among the 25 leading Level 3 causes, age-standardised DALY rates increased most substantially for anxiety disorders (16·7% [14·0-19·8]), depressive disorders (16·4% [11·9-21·3]), and diabetes (14·0% [10·0-17·4]). Age-standardised DALY rates due to injuries decreased globally by 24·0% (20·7-27·2) between 2010 and 2021, although improvements were not uniform across locations, ages, and sexes. Globally, HALE at birth improved slightly, from 61·3 years (58·6-63·6) in 2010 to 62·2 years (59·4-64·7) in 2021. However, despite this overall increase, HALE decreased by 2·2% (1·6-2·9) between 2019 and 2021.

INTERPRETATION

Putting the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of causes of health loss is crucial to understanding its impact and ensuring that health funding and policy address needs at both local and global levels through cost-effective and evidence-based interventions. A global epidemiological transition remains underway. Our findings suggest that prioritising non-communicable disease prevention and treatment policies, as well as strengthening health systems, continues to be crucially important. The progress on reducing the burden of CMNN diseases must not stall; although global trends are improving, the burden of CMNN diseases remains unacceptably high. Evidence-based interventions will help save the lives of young children and mothers and improve the overall health and economic conditions of societies across the world. Governments and multilateral organisations should prioritise pandemic preparedness planning alongside efforts to reduce the burden of diseases and injuries that will strain resources in the coming decades.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments

Importance

Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease.

Objective

To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs.

Exposures

Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores.

Results

A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

The Human Mpox Global Outbreak: Available Control Tools and the Opportunity to Break a Cycle of Neglect in Endemic Countries

The 2022 global outbreak of human Mpox (formerly monkeypox) virus (MPXV) infection outside of the usual endemic zones in Africa challenged our understanding of the virus's natural history, transmission dynamics, and risk factors. This outbreak has highlighted the need for diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, and implementation research, all of which require more substantial investments in equitable collaborative partnerships. Global multidisciplinary networks need to tackle MPXV and other neglected emerging and reemerging zoonotic pathogens to address them locally and prevent or quickly control their worldwide spread. Political endorsement from individual countries and financial commitments to maintain control efforts will be essential for long-term sustainability.

Global HIV control: is the glass half empty or half full?

The massive scale-up of HIV treatment and prevention over the past two decades has resulted in important reductions in new infections and mortality globally. Reduction in HIV incidence, however, has been unequal, with worsening epidemics in regions where the reach and scale of HIV control programmes have been insufficient, especially in eastern Europe, central Asia, the Middle East, north Africa, and Latin America where HIV epidemics are concentrated among key populations, including people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, transgender people, and some minority racial and ethnic groups. The global state of the HIV pandemic highlights disparities in HIV control efforts and provides a roadmap for what should be done, including investment to better implement the effective HIV prevention and treatment tools that are available, but whose adoption and scale-up are not yet sufficient to get us close to an AIDS-free generation. To achieve the full potential of global HIV control, we call for urgent, evidence-informed implementation at scale of our existing and novel HIV prevention and treatment strategies in ways that are better, faster, more efficient, and cost-effective, especially in key populations and regions where the HIV pandemic continues to expand.

Advancing detection and response capacities for emerging and re-emerging pathogens in Africa

Recurrent disease outbreaks caused by a range of emerging and resurging pathogens over the past decade reveal major gaps in public health preparedness, detection, and response systems in Africa. Underlying causes of recurrent disease outbreaks include inadequacies in the detection of new infectious disease outbreaks in the community, in rapid pathogen identification, and in proactive surveillance systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70% of zoonotic outbreaks occur, there remains the perennial risk of outbreaks of new or re-emerging pathogens for which no vaccines or treatments are available. As the Ebola virus disease, COVID-19, and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreaks highlight, a major paradigm shift is required to establish an effective infrastructure and common frameworks for preparedness and to prompt national and regional public health responses to mitigate the effects of future pandemics in Africa.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424).

SETTING

12 clinical sites in Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions.

RESULTS

Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected.

LIMITATION

Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

The effect of group support psychotherapy on adherence to anti-retroviral therapy and viral suppression among HIV positive young people: Study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Several studies have demonstrated an association between psychological risk factors and HIV disease progression. However, there is limited information on the use of psychological interventions to improve HIV treatment outcomes in young people living with HIV.

Objective

This pilot trial aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of group support psychotherapy in improving adherence to anti-retroviral therapy and viral suppression in young people living with HIV in Uganda.

Methods

We recruited 120 young people with HIV, aged 10–18 years, who had non-viral suppression 6 months after initiating first-line anti-retroviral therapy (ART) from community based HIV clinics in Kitgum district, northern Uganda. Participants were randomly assigned to receive GSP plus IAC (N = 60) or IAC alone (N = 60). Primary outcomes will be indicators of feasibility and acceptability as well as preliminary effectiveness of GSP in improving ART adherence and viral suppression analysed by intention to treat using cluster-adjusted t tests and permutation tests. Secondary outcomes will be measures of depression, anxiety and cost-effectiveness.

Results

The trial has been approved by the Makerere College of Health Sciences School of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology. Recruitment began in June 2021 and 120 young people living with HIV with their adult caregivers have been recruited to the trial. An analysis of baseline and 6-month data is in progress. The results of this trial will not only be presented at national and international conferences but also submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and as a report to the funding agencies.

Conclusions

This pilot trial will provide critical evidence to support the ongoing mental health integration into routine HIV care in Uganda.

Trial Registration

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR): 202006601935462

Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 μg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Early Treatment with Fluvoxamine among Patients with COVID-19: A Cost-Consequence Model

To date, two published randomized trials have indicated a clinical benefit of early treatment with fluvoxamine versus placebo for adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Using the results of the largest of these trials, the TOGETHER trial, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to assess the health system benefits of preventing progression to severe COVID-19 in outpatient populations in the United States. A decision-analytic model in the form of a decision tree was constructed to evaluate two treatment strategies for high-risk patients with confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in the primary analysis: treatment with a 10-day course of fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily) and current standard-of-care. A secondary analysis comparing a 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also conducted. We used a time horizon of 28 days. Reported outcomes included cost-savings and hospitalization days avoided. The results of our analysis indicated that administration of fluvoxamine to symptomatic outpatients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 was substantially cost-saving, in the amount of $232 per eligible patient and prevented an average of 0.15 hospital days per patient treated, compared with standard of care. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also shown to be cost-saving despite its higher acquisition cost and provided savings to the healthcare system of $625 per patient treated. These findings suggest that fluvoxamine is likely to be a cost-effective addition to frontline COVID-19 mitigation strategies in many settings, particularly where access to nirmaltrevir-ritonavir or monoclonal antibodies is limited.

Toward a New Paradigm of North-South and South-South Partnerships for Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and Other Outbreaks

COVID-19 underscores the need to reimagine North-South partnerships and redefine best practices for building public health and research capacity to address emergent health threats and pandemic preparedness in low- and-middle income countries (LMICs). Historically, outbreak and emergency responses have failed to ensure that the Global South has the autonomy and capacity to respond to public health threats in a timely and equitable manner. The COVID-19 response, however, has demonstrated that innovations and solutions in the Global South can not only fill resource and capacity gaps in LMICs but can also provide solutions to challenges globally. These innovations offer valuable lessons about strengthening local manufacturing capacity to produce essential diagnostic, treatment, and prevention tools; implementing high-quality research studies; expanding laboratory and research capacity; and promoting effective cooperation and governance. We discuss specific examples of capacity-building from Rwanda, South Africa, and Senegal. To fulfill promises made to the Global South during the COVID-19 pandemic, restore and resume health service delivery, and effectively prevent and respond to the next health threat, we need to prioritize equitable access to local manufacturing of basic health tools while building health systems capacities in the Global South.

Use of trained scent dogs for detection of COVID-19 and evidence of cost-saving

Background

One of the lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the importance of early, flexible, and rapidly deployable disease detection methods. Currently, diagnosis of COVID-19 requires the collection of oro/nasopharyngal swabs, nasal turbinate, anterior nares and saliva but as the pandemic continues, disease detection methods that can identify infected individuals earlier and more quickly will be crucial for slowing the spread of the virus. Previous studies have indicated that dogs can be trained to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced during respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether this approach could be applied for detection of COVID-19 in Rwanda and measured its cost-saving.

Methods

Over a period of 5 months, four dogs were trained to detect VOCs in sweat samples collected from human subjects confirmed positive or negative for COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Dogs were trained using a detection dog training system (DDTS) and in vivo diagnosis. Samples were collected from 5,253 participants using a cotton pad swiped in the underarm to collect sweat samples. Statistical analysis was conducted using R statistical software.

Findings

From August to September 2021 during the Delta wave, the sensitivity of the dogs' COVID-19 detection ranged from 75.0 to 89.9% for the lowest- and highest-performing dogs, respectively. Specificity ranged from 96.1 to 98.4%, respectively. In the second phase coinciding with the Omicron wave (January-March 2022), the sensitivity decreased substantially from 36.6 to 41.5%, while specificity remained above 95% for all four dogs. The sensitivity and specificity by any positive sample detected by at least one dog was 83.9, 95% CI: 75.8-90.2 and 94.9%; 95% CI: 93.9-95.8, respectively. The use of scent detection dogs was also found to be cost-saving compared to antigen rapid diagnostic tests, based on a marginal cost of approximately $14,000 USD for testing of the 5,253 samples which makes 2.67 USD per sample. Testing turnaround time was also faster with the scent detection dogs, at 3 h compared to 11 h with routine diagnostic testing.

Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that trained dogs can accurately identify respiratory secretion samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients timely and cost-effectively. Our findings recommend further uptake of this approach for COVID-19 detection.

Antidepressant Use and Its Association with 28-Day Mortality in Inpatients with SARS-CoV-2: Support for the FIASMA Model against COVID-19

To reduce Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality and morbidity, widely available oral COVID-19 treatments are urgently needed. Certain antidepressants, such as fluvoxamine or fluoxetine, may be beneficial against COVID-19. We included 388,945 adult inpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at 36 AP−HP (Assistance Publique−Hôpitaux de Paris) hospitals from 2 May 2020 to 2 November 2021. We compared the prevalence of antidepressant use at admission in a 1:1 ratio matched analytic sample with and without COVID-19 (N = 82,586), and assessed its association with 28-day all-cause mortality in a 1:1 ratio matched analytic sample of COVID-19 inpatients with and without antidepressant use at admission (N = 1482). Antidepressant use was significantly less prevalent in inpatients with COVID-19 than in a matched control group of inpatients without COVID-19 (1.9% versus 4.8%; Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.38; 95%CI = 0.35−0.41, p < 0.001). Antidepressant use was significantly associated with reduced 28-day mortality among COVID-19 inpatients (12.8% versus 21.2%; OR = 0.55; 95%CI = 0.41−0.72, p < 0.001), particularly at daily doses of at least 40 mg fluoxetine equivalents. Antidepressants with high FIASMA (Functional Inhibitors of Acid Sphingomyelinase) activity seem to drive both associations. These treatments may reduce SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related mortality in inpatients, and may be appropriate for prophylaxis and/or COVID-19 therapy for outpatients or inpatients.

Long-Term Effect of Group Support Psychotherapy on Depression and HIV Treatment Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Trial in Uganda

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the effect of group support psychotherapy (GSP) compared with group HIV education (GHE) on depression and HIV treatment outcomes 24 months after treatment. We further aimed to investigate the mediating role of depression and antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence in the relationship between GSP and viral load suppression.

METHODS

Thirty HIV clinics across three districts were randomly assigned to deliver either GSP or GHE for depression. Depression and optimal (≥95%) ART adherence was assessed at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. Viral load was drawn from the medical charts at baseline and 12 and 24 months after treatment. Multilevel mixed-effects regression models and generalized structural equation modeling were used to estimate 24-month outcomes and mediation effects.

RESULTS

Participants ( N = 1140) were enrolled from HIV clinics offering either GSP ( n = 578 [51%]) or GHE ( n = 562 [49%]). Fewer GSP than GHE participants met the criteria for depression at 24 months after treatment (1% versus 25%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.002, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0002-0.018). More GSP than GHE participants reported optimal (≥95%) ART adherence (96% versus 88%; aOR = 20.88, 95% CI = 5.78-75.33) and improved viral suppression (96% versus 88%; aOR = 3.38, 95% CI = 1.02-11.02). The indirect effects of GSP through sequential reduction in depression and improvement in ART adherence at 12 months may partially explain the higher viral suppression rates at 24 months in GSP than GHE groups.

CONCLUSION

In settings where the HIV epidemic persists, depression treatment with GSP may be critical for optimal HIV treatment outcomes.Trial Registration: The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201608001738234.

A randomized control trial of high-dose micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation in healthy persons with untreated HIV infection

Background

Although micronutrient and antioxidant supplementation are widely used by persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a therapeutic role beyond recommended daily allowances (RDA) remains unproven. An oral high-dose micronutrient and antioxidant supplement (Treatment) was compared to an RDA supplement (Control) for time to progressive immunodeficiency or initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV (PLWH).

Methods

This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial. PLWH were recruited from Canadian HIV Trials Network sites, and followed quarterly for two years. Eligible participants were asymptomatic, antiretroviral treatment (ART)-naïve, HIV-seropositive adults with a CD4 T lymphocyte count (CD4 count) between 375–750 cells/μL. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to receive Treatment or Control supplements. The primary outcome was a composite of time-to-first of confirmed CD4 count below 350 cells/μL, initiation of ART, AIDS-defining illness or death. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included CD4 count trajectory from baseline to ART initiation or two years. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the study for safety, recruitment and protocol adherence every six months.

Results

Of 171 enrolled participants: 66 (38.6%) experienced a primary outcome: 27 reached a CD4 count below 350 cells/μL, and 57 started ART. There was no significant difference in time-to-first outcome between groups (Hazard Ratio = 1.05; 95%CI: 0.65, 1.70), or in time to any component outcome. Using intent-to-treat censoring, mean annualized rates of CD4 count decline were -42.703 cells/μL and -79.763 cells/μL for Treatment and Control groups, with no statistical difference in the mean change between groups (-37.06 cells/μL/52 weeks, 95%CI: (-93.59, 19.47); p = 0.1993). Accrual was stopped at 171 of the 212 intended participants after an interim analysis for futility, although participant follow-up was completed.

Conclusions

In ART-naïve PLWH, high-dose antioxidant, micronutrient supplementation compared to RDA supplementation had no significant effect on disease progression or ART initiation.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00798772.

Economic Evaluation of Cost and Time Required for a Platform Trial vs Conventional Trials

IMPORTANCE

Platform trial design allows the introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated and offers efficiencies to clinical research. However, limited guidance exists on the economic resources required to establish and maintain platform trials.

OBJECTIVE

To compare cost (US dollars) and time requirements of conducting a platform trial vs a series of conventional (nonplatform) trials using a real-life example.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this economic evaluation, an online survey was administered to a group of international experts (146 participants) with publication records of platform trials to elicit their opinions on cost and time to set up and conduct platform, multigroup, and 2-group trials. Using the reported entry dates of 10 interventions into Systemic Therapy in Advancing Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy, the longest ongoing platform trial, 3 scenarios were designed involving a single platform trial (scenario 1), 1 multigroup followed by 5 2-group trials (scenario 2), and a series of 10 2-group trials (scenario 3). All scenarios started with 5 interventions, then 5 more interventions were either added to the platform or evaluated independently. Simulations with the survey results as inputs were used to compare the platform vs conventional trial designs. Data were analyzed from July to September 2021.

EXPOSURE

Platform trial design.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total trial setup and conduct cost and cumulative duration.

RESULTS

Although setup time and cost requirements of a single trial were highest for the platform trial, cumulative requirements of setting up a series of multiple trials in scenarios 2 and 3 were larger. Compared with the platform trial, there was a median (IQR) increase of 216.7% (202.2%-242.5%) in cumulative setup costs for scenario 2 and 391.1% (365.3%-437.9%) for scenario 3. In terms of total cost, there was a median (IQR) increase of 17.4% (12.1%-22.5%) for scenario 2 and 57.5% (43.1%-69.9%) for scenario 3. There was a median (IQR) increase in cumulative trial duration of 171.1% (158.3%-184.3%) for scenario 2 and 311.9% (282.0%-349.1%) for scenario 3. Cost and time reductions in the platform trial were observed in both the initial and subsequently evaluated interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although setting up platform trials can take longer and be costly, the findings of this study suggest that having a single infrastructure can improve efficiencies with respect to costs and efforts.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Pregnancy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A 6-Country Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on COVID-19 outcomes among pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where high-risk comorbidities are prevalent. We investigated the impact of pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection and of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy to generate evidence for health policy and clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-country retrospective cohort study among hospitalized women of childbearing age between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. Exposures were (1) pregnancy and (2) a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test. The primary outcome for both analyses was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Secondary outcomes included supplemental oxygen requirement, mechanical ventilation, adverse birth outcomes, and in-hospital mortality. We used log-binomial regression to estimate the effect between pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Factors associated with mortality were evaluated using competing-risk proportional subdistribution hazards models.

RESULTS

Our analyses included 1315 hospitalized women: 510 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2, 403 nonpregnant women with SARS-CoV-2, and 402 pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, pregnancy was associated with increased risk for ICU admission (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.42-4.01), oxygen supplementation (aRR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.44-2.42), and hazard of in-hospital death (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [aSHR]: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.08-3.70). Among pregnant women, SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the risk of ICU admission (aRR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.20-3.35), oxygen supplementation (aRR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.17-2.11), and hazard of in-hospital death (aSHR: 5.03; 95% CI: 1.79-14.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalized women in SSA, both SARS-CoV-2 infection and pregnancy independently increased risks of ICU admission, oxygen supplementation, and death. These data support international recommendations to prioritize COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Interferon Treatments for SARS-CoV-2: Challenges and Opportunities

Interferon (IFN) therapies are used to treat a variety of infections and diseases and could be used to treat SARS-CoV-2. However, optimal use and timing of IFN therapy to treat SARS-CoV-2 is not well documented. We aimed to synthesize available evidence to understand whether interferon therapy should be recommended for treatment compared to a placebo or standard of care in adult patients. We reviewed literature comparing outcomes of randomized control trials that used IFN therapy for adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 between 2019 and 2021. Data were extracted from 11 of 669 screened studies. Evidence of IFN effectiveness was mixed. Five studies reported that IFN was a better therapy than the control, four found no or minimal difference between IFN and the control, and two concluded that IFN led to worse patient outcomes than the control. Evidence was difficult to compare because of high variability in outcome measures, intervention types and administration, subtypes of IFNs used and timing of interventions. We recommend standardized indicators and reporting for IFN therapy for SARS-CoV-2 to improve evidence synthesis and generation. While IFN therapy has the potential to be a viable treatment for SARS-CoV-2, especially when combined with antivirals and early administration, the lack of comparable of study outcomes prevents evidence synthesis and uptake.

Brief Report: Active HIV Case Finding in the City of Kigali, Rwanda: Assessment of Voluntary Assisted Partner Notification Modalities to Detect Undiagnosed HIV Infections

BACKGROUND

Voluntary assisted partner notification (VAPN) services that use contract, provider, or dual referral modalities may be efficient to identify individuals with undiagnosed HIV infection. We aimed to assess the relative effectiveness of VAPN modalities in identifying undiagnosed HIV infections.

SETTING

VAPN was piloted in 23 health facilities in Kigali, Rwanda.

METHODS

We identified individuals with a new HIV diagnosis before antiretroviral therapy initiation or individuals on antiretroviral therapy (index cases), who reported having had sexual partners with unknown HIV status, to assess the association between referral modalities and the odds of identifying HIV-positive partners using a Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression model. We adjusted our model for important factors identified through a Bayesian variable selection.

RESULTS

Between October 2018 and December 2019, 6336 index cases were recruited, leading to the testing of 7690 partners. HIV positivity rate was 7.1% (546/7690). We found no association between the different referral modalities and the odds of identifying HIV-positive partners. Notified partners of male individuals (adjusted odds ratio 1.84; 95% credible interval: 1.50 to 2.28) and index cases with a new HIV diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio 1.82; 95% credible interval: 1.45 to 2.30) were more likely to be infected with HIV.

CONCLUSION

All 3 VAPN modalities were comparable in identifying partners with HIV. Male individuals and newly diagnosed index cases were more likely to have partners with HIV. HIV-positive yield from index testing was higher than the national average and should be scaled up to reach the first UNAIDS-95 target by 2030.

Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among Children and Adolescents Hospitalized With COVID-19 in 6 Sub-Saharan African Countries

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about COVID-19 outcomes among children and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa, where preexisting comorbidities are prevalent.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical outcomes and factors associated with outcomes among children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 in 6 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was a retrospective record review of data from 25 hospitals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda from March 1 to December 31, 2020, and included 469 hospitalized patients aged 0 to 19 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

EXPOSURES

Age, sex, preexisting comorbidities, and region of residence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

An ordinal primary outcome scale was used comprising 5 categories: (1) hospitalization without oxygen supplementation, (2) hospitalization with oxygen supplementation, (3) ICU admission, (4) invasive mechanical ventilation, and (5) death. The secondary outcome was length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Among 469 hospitalized children and adolescents, the median age was 5.9 years (IQR, 1.6-11.1 years); 245 patients (52.4%) were male, and 115 (24.5%) had comorbidities. A total of 39 patients (8.3%) were from central Africa, 172 (36.7%) from eastern Africa, 208 (44.3%) from southern Africa, and 50 (10.7%) from western Africa. Eighteen patients had suspected (n = 6) or confirmed (n = 12) multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Thirty-nine patients (8.3%) died, including 22 of 69 patients (31.9%) who required intensive care unit admission and 4 of 18 patients (22.2%) with suspected or confirmed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Among 468 patients, 418 (89.3%) were discharged, and 16 (3.4%) remained hospitalized. The likelihood of outcomes with higher vs lower severity among children younger than 1 year expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 4.89 (95% CI, 1.44-16.61) times higher than that of adolescents aged 15 to 19 years. The presence of hypertension (aOR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.89-18.50), chronic lung disease (aOR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.65-5.37), or a hematological disorder (aOR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.04-9.24) was associated with severe outcomes. Age younger than 1 year (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [asHR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.87), the presence of 1 comorbidity (asHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.72), and the presence of 2 or more comorbidities (asHR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.18-0.38) were associated with reduced rates of hospital discharge.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa, high rates of morbidity and mortality were observed among infants and patients with noncommunicable disease comorbidities, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccination and therapeutic interventions are needed for young populations in this region.

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.

Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND

In an era of shifting global agendas and expanded emphasis on non-communicable diseases and injuries along with communicable diseases, sound evidence on trends by cause at the national level is essential. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) provides a systematic scientific assessment of published, publicly available, and contributed data on incidence, prevalence, and mortality for a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of diseases and injuries.

METHODS

GBD estimates incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to 369 diseases and injuries, for two sexes, and for 204 countries and territories. Input data were extracted from censuses, household surveys, civil registration and vital statistics, disease registries, health service use, air pollution monitors, satellite imaging, disease notifications, and other sources. Cause-specific death rates and cause fractions were calculated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression. Cause-specific deaths were adjusted to match the total all-cause deaths calculated as part of the GBD population, fertility, and mortality estimates. Deaths were multiplied by standard life expectancy at each age to calculate YLLs. A Bayesian meta-regression modelling tool, DisMod-MR 2.1, was used to ensure consistency between incidence, prevalence, remission, excess mortality, and cause-specific mortality for most causes. Prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights for mutually exclusive sequelae of diseases and injuries to calculate YLDs. We considered results in the context of the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and fertility rate in females younger than 25 years. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered 1000 draw values of the posterior distribution.

FINDINGS

Global health has steadily improved over the past 30 years as measured by age-standardised DALY rates. After taking into account population growth and ageing, the absolute number of DALYs has remained stable. Since 2010, the pace of decline in global age-standardised DALY rates has accelerated in age groups younger than 50 years compared with the 1990-2010 time period, with the greatest annualised rate of decline occurring in the 0-9-year age group. Six infectious diseases were among the top ten causes of DALYs in children younger than 10 years in 2019: lower respiratory infections (ranked second), diarrhoeal diseases (third), malaria (fifth), meningitis (sixth), whooping cough (ninth), and sexually transmitted infections (which, in this age group, is fully accounted for by congenital syphilis; ranked tenth). In adolescents aged 10-24 years, three injury causes were among the top causes of DALYs: road injuries (ranked first), self-harm (third), and interpersonal violence (fifth). Five of the causes that were in the top ten for ages 10-24 years were also in the top ten in the 25-49-year age group: road injuries (ranked first), HIV/AIDS (second), low back pain (fourth), headache disorders (fifth), and depressive disorders (sixth). In 2019, ischaemic heart disease and stroke were the top-ranked causes of DALYs in both the 50-74-year and 75-years-and-older age groups. Since 1990, there has been a marked shift towards a greater proportion of burden due to YLDs from non-communicable diseases and injuries. In 2019, there were 11 countries where non-communicable disease and injury YLDs constituted more than half of all disease burden. Decreases in age-standardised DALY rates have accelerated over the past decade in countries at the lower end of the SDI range, while improvements have started to stagnate or even reverse in countries with higher SDI.

INTERPRETATION

As disability becomes an increasingly large component of disease burden and a larger component of health expenditure, greater research and development investment is needed to identify new, more effective intervention strategies. With a rapidly ageing global population, the demands on health services to deal with disabling outcomes, which increase with age, will require policy makers to anticipate these changes. The mix of universal and more geographically specific influences on health reinforces the need for regular reporting on population health in detail and by underlying cause to help decision makers to identify success stories of disease control to emulate, as well as opportunities to improve.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.