Clinical trials and their impact on policy during COVID-19: a review

Background

Of over 8,000 recorded randomised trials addressing COVID-19, around 80% were of treatments, and 17% have reported results. Approximately 1% were adaptive or platform trials, with 25 having results available, across 29 journal articles and 10 preprint articles.

Methods

We conducted an extensive literature review to address four questions about COVID-19 trials, particularly the role and impact of platform/adaptive trials and lessons learned.

Results

The key findings were: Q1. Social value in conducting trials and uptake into policy? COVID-19 drug treatments varied substantially and changed considerably, with drugs found effective in definitive clinical trials replacing unproven drugs. Dexamethasone has likely saved ½-2 million lives, and was cost effective across a range of countries and populations, whereas the cost effectiveness of remdesivir is uncertain. Published economic and health system impacts of COVID-19 treatments were infrequent. Q2. Issues with adaptive trial designs. Of the 77 platform trials registered, 6 major platform trials, with approximately 50 treatment arms, recruited ~135,000 participants with funding over $100 million. Q3. Models of good practice. Streamlined set-up processes such as flexible and fast-track funding, ethics, and governance approvals are vital. To facilitate recruitment, simple and streamlined research processes, and pre-existing research networks to coordinate trial planning, design, conduct and practice change are crucial to success. Q4. Potential conflicts to avoid? When treating patients through trials, balancing individual and collective rights and allocating scarce resources between healthcare and research are challenging. Tensions occur between commercial and non-commercial sectors, and academic and public health interests, such as publication and funding driven indicators and the public good.

Conclusion

There is a need to (i) reduce small, repetitive, single centre trials, (ii) increase coordination to ensure robust research conducted for treatments, and (iii) a wider adoption of adaptive/platform trial designs to respond to fast-evolving evidence landscape.

Advance Care Planning in Patients with Suspected or Proven COVID: Are We Meeting Our Own Standards?

OBJECTIVE

Given the importance of advance care planning (ACP) in the context of a pandemic, we aimed to assess current adherence to local policy recommending ACP in all hospitalised adult patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary referral and teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A select sample of adult patients admitted to Liverpool Hospital in 2019-2021 with suspected or proven COVID-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of patients with documented ACP and format of ACP.

RESULTS

Amongst 209 patients with proven or suspected COVID-19 hospitalised between March 2019 through to September 2021, median frailty score was 3, the median Charlson Comorbidity Score was 4, median age of the patients was 71 years, and median length of hospital stay was 5 days (range 0-98 days). Almost all patients were tested for COVID-19 (n = 207, 99%) of which 15% (31) were positive. Fewer than a quarter of the patients had documented ACPs (50, 24%) and 17 patients had existing formal advance care directives. Patients who had ACP were older, more likely to be frail and more likely to have higher rates of comorbidity compared to those without ACP. ACP was more commonly discussed with family members (41/50) than patients (25/50) and others (5/50).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the local ACP policy mandating such discussions was low. This reinforces the need for prioritising ACP discussions, especially for unwell patients such as those with COVID, likely involving further input to improve awareness and rates of formal documentation.

Comparison of Telephone and Video Telehealth Consultations: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Telehealth has been used for health care delivery for decades, but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the uptake of telehealth in many care settings globally. However, few studies have carried out a direct comparison among different telehealth modalities, with very few studies having compared the effectiveness of telephone and video telehealth modalities.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing synchronous telehealth consultations delivered by telephone and those conducted by video with outcomes such as clinical effectiveness, patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient and clinician satisfaction with care.

METHODS

PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and CENTRAL were searched via the Cochrane Library from inception until February 10, 2023, for RCTs without any language restriction. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted on included RCTs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. We included studies carried out in any health setting-involving all types of outpatient cohorts and all types of health care providers-that compared synchronous video consultations directly with telephone consultations and reported outcomes specified in the objective. We excluded studies of clinician-to-clinician telehealth consults, hospitalized patients, and asynchronous consultations.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs-10 in the United States, 3 in the United Kingdom, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Australia involving 1719 participants-were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Most of the telehealth interventions were for hospital-based outpatient follow-ups, monitoring, and rehabilitation (n=13). The 3 studies that were conducted in the community all focused on smoking cessation. In half of the studies, nurses delivered the care (n=8). Almost all included studies had high or unclear risk of bias, mainly due to bias in the randomization process and selection of reported results. The trials found no substantial differences between telephone and video telehealth consultations with regard to clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and health care use (cost-effectiveness) outcomes. None of the studies reported on patient safety or adverse events. We did not find any study on telehealth interventions for diagnosis, initiating new treatment, or those conducted in a primary care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a small set of diverse trials, we found no notable differences between telephone and video consultations for the management of patients with an established diagnosis. There is also a significant lack of telehealth research in primary care settings despite its high uptake.

Effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies reporting on patients with long covid and symptoms of long covid, with vaccination before and after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

1645 articles were screened but no randomised controlled trials were found. 16 observational studies from five countries (USA, UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were identified that reported on 614 392 patients. The most common symptoms of long covid that were studied were fatigue, cough, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, muscle ache, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion. 12 studies reported data on vaccination before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and 10 showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long covid: the odds ratio of developing long covid with one dose of vaccine ranged from 0.22 to 1.03; with two doses, odds ratios were 0.25-1; with three doses, 0.16; and with any dose, 0.48-1.01. Five studies reported on vaccination after infection, with odds ratios of 0.38-0.91. The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. The studies failed to adjust for potential confounders, such as other protective behaviours and missing data, thus increasing the risk of bias and decreasing the certainty of evidence to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies suggest that covid-19 vaccines might have protective and therapeutic effects on long covid. More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed, however, to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e8jdy.

Comparison of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections with cumulative and imputed COVID-19 cases: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accurate seroprevalence estimates of SARS-CoV-2 in different populations could clarify the extent to which current testing strategies are identifying all active infection, and hence the true magnitude and spread of the infection. Our primary objective was to identify valid seroprevalence studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and compare their estimates with the reported, and imputed, COVID-19 case rates within the same population at the same time point.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe-PMC for published studies and pre-prints that reported anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM and/or IgA antibodies for serosurveys of the general community from 1 Jan to 12 Aug 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 2199 studies identified, 170 were assessed for full text and 17 studies representing 15 regions and 118,297 subjects were includable. The seroprevalence proportions in 8 studies ranged between 1%-10%, with 5 studies under 1%, and 4 over 10%-from the notably hard-hit regions of Gangelt, Germany; Northwest Iran; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Stockholm, Sweden. For seropositive cases who were not previously identified as COVID-19 cases, the majority had prior COVID-like symptoms. The estimated seroprevalences ranged from 0.56-717 times greater than the number of reported cumulative cases-half of the studies reported greater than 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections than the cumulative number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence is well below "herd immunity" in all countries studied. The estimated number of infections, however, were much greater than the number of reported cases and deaths in almost all locations. The majority of seropositive people reported prior COVID-like symptoms, suggesting that undertesting of symptomatic people may be causing a substantial under-ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing for hospitalized older patients near end of life: a systematic review

Introduction: Polypharmacy is prevalent in hospitals and deprescribing strategies for older people are strongly promoted. However, evidence of their feasibility and sustainability among patients receiving end of life care is lacking. The objective of this review was to ascertain effectiveness and post-discharge sustainability of hospital-initiated deprescribing strategies in older people near the end of life. Areas covered: The authors searched for controlled trials, with low risk of bias and measures of effectiveness post-discharge. Intervention description, duration, and healthcare provider engagement were investigated for their impact on reduction of number of medications, proportions of patients prescribed inappropriate medications, returns to emergency, hospital admission and adverse events. Expert opinion: Limited evidence suggests hospital-initiated deprescribing interventions may reduce prescribing inappropriateness among older terminal patients in the short term, but evidence beyond 3 months is lacking for significant prevention of adverse events or health service utilization. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and short follow-up periods precluded quantitative assessment of sustainability. Trials of older people with terminal conditions with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm the effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing at the end of life. Objective tools to reliably identify near end-of-life status would be useful in selecting target groups for these interventions.

Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knowing the prevalence of true asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is critical for designing mitigation measures against the pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on asymptomatic cases and transmission rates.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for primary studies on asymptomatic prevalence in which (1) the sample frame includes at-risk populations and (2) follow-up was sufficient to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed-effects and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies.

RESULTS

We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%; 95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%; 95% CI 13% to 20%). The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our one-in-six estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates is lower than those of many highly publicized studies but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in subpopulations such as children, to better understand how asymptomatic cases contribute to the pandemic.

Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knowing the prevalence of true asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is critical for designing mitigation measures against the pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on asymptomatic cases and transmission rates.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for primary studies on asymptomatic prevalence in which (1) the sample frame includes at-risk populations and (2) follow-up was sufficient to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed-effects and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies.

RESULTS

We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%; 95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%; 95% CI 13% to 20%). The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our one-in-six estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates is lower than those of many highly publicized studies but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in subpopulations such as children, to better understand how asymptomatic cases contribute to the pandemic.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study

Background

The ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention.

Objective

This study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers.

Results

Interview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners’ perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives.

Conclusions

mHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.

mHealth App Prescription in Australian General Practice: Pre-Post Study

Background

Evidence of effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) apps as well as their usability as non-drug interventions in primary care are emerging around the globe.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the feasibility of mHealth app prescription by general practitioners (GPs) and to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to increase app prescription.

Methods

A single-group, before-and-after study was conducted in Australian general practice. GPs were given prescription pads for 6 mHealth apps and reported the number of prescriptions dispensed for 4 months. After the reporting of month 2, a 2-minute video of one of the apps was randomly selected and sent to each GP. Data were collected through a prestudy questionnaire, monthly electronic reporting, and end-of-study interviews. The primary outcome was the number of app prescriptions (total, monthly, per GP, and per GP per fortnight). Secondary outcomes included confidence in prescribing apps (0-5 scale), the impact of the intervention video on subsequent prescription numbers, and acceptability of the interventions.

Results

Of 40 GPs recruited, 39 commenced, and 36 completed the study. In total, 1324 app prescriptions were dispensed over 4 months. The median number of apps prescribed per GP was 30 (range 6-111 apps). The median number of apps prescribed per GP per fortnight increased from the pre-study level of 1.7 to 4.1. Confidence about prescribing apps doubled from a mean of 2 (not so confident) to 4 (very confident). App videos did not affect subsequent prescription rates substantially. Post-study interviews revealed that the intervention was highly acceptable.

Conclusions

mHealth app prescription in general practice is feasible, and our implementation intervention was effective in increasing app prescription. GPs need more tailored education and training on the value of mHealth apps and knowledge of prescribable apps to be able to successfully change their prescribing habits to include apps. The future of sustainable and scalable app prescription requires a trustworthy electronic app repository of prescribable mHealth apps for GPs.

Current Knowledge and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps Among Australian General Practitioners: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) apps can be prescribed as an effective self-management tool for patients. However, it is challenging for doctors to navigate 350,000 mHealth apps to find the right ones to recommend. Although medical professionals from many countries are using mHealth apps to varying degrees, current mHealth app use by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and the barriers and facilitators they encounter when integrating mHealth apps in their clinical practice have not been reported comprehensively.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate current knowledge and use of mHealth apps by GPs in Australia, (2) determine the barriers and facilitators to their use of mHealth apps in consultations, and (3) explore potential solutions to the barriers.

METHODS

We helped the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) to expand the mHealth section of their annual technology survey for 2017 based on the findings of our semistructured interviews with GPs to further explore barriers to using mHealth apps in clinical practice. The survey was distributed to the RACGP members nationwide between October 26 and December 3, 2017 using Qualtrics Web-based survey tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1014 RACGP members responded (response rate 4.6% [1014/21,884], completion rate 61.2% [621/1014]). The median years practiced was 20.7 years. Two-thirds of the GPs used apps professionally in the forms of medical calculators and point-of-care references. A little over half of the GPs recommended apps for patients either daily (12.9%, 80/621), weekly (25.9%, 161/621), or monthly (13.4%, 83/621). Mindfulness and mental health apps were recommended most often (32.5%, 337/1036), followed by diet and nutrition (13.9%, 144/1036), exercise and fitness (12.7%, 132/1036), and women's health (10%, 104/1036) related apps. Knowledge and usage of evidence-based apps from the Handbook of Non-Drug Interventions were low. The prevailing barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps (59.9%, 372/621) and the lack of trustworthy source to access them (15.5%, 96/621). GPs expressed their need for a list of safe and effective apps from a trustworthy source, such as the RACGP, to overcome these barriers. They reported a preference for online video training material or webinar to learn more about mHealth apps.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GPs are using apps professionally but recommending apps to patients sparingly. The main barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps and the lack of trustworthy source to access them. A curated compilation of effective mHealth apps or an app library specifically aimed at GPs and health professionals would help solve both barriers.

Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements-Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but not the Outcomes.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 10 datasets, derived from the literature searches of completed systematic reviews, was used to test PICo-based title-only screening. Search terms for screening were generated from the inclusion criteria of each review, specifically the PICo elements-Participants, Interventions and Comparators. Synonyms for the PICo terms were sought, including alternatives for clinical conditions, trade names of generic drugs and abbreviations for clinical conditions, interventions and comparators. The MeSH database, Wikipedia, Google searches and online thesauri were used to assist generating terms. Title-only screening was performed by five reviewers independently in Endnote X7 reference management software using OR Boolean operator. Outcome measures were recall of included studies and the reduction in screening effort. Recall is the proportion of included studies retrieved using PICo title-only screening out of the total number of included studies in the original reviews. The percentage reduction in screening effort is the proportion of records not needing screening because the method eliminates them from the screen set.

RESULTS

Across the 10 reviews, the reduction in screening effort ranged from 11 to 78% with a median reduction of 53%. In nine systematic reviews, the recall of included studies was 100%. In one review (oxygen therapy), four of five reviewers missed the same included study (median recall 67%). A post hoc analysis was performed on the dataset with the lowest reduction in screening effort (11%), and it was rescreened using only the intervention and comparator keywords and omitting keywords for participants. The reduction in screening effort increased to 57%, and the recall of included studies was maintained (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of datasets, PICo-based title-only screening was able to expedite citation screening for scoping searches and rapid reviews by reducing the number of citations needed to screen but requires a thorough workup of the potential synonyms and alternative terms. Further research which evaluates the feasibility of this technique with heterogeneous datasets in different fields would be useful to inform the generalisability of this technique.