Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) drug efficacy study landscape: A systematic scoping review of clinical trials and observational studies to assess the feasibility of establishing an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform

BACKGROUND

Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is a dermatosis which can occur after successful treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and is a public health problem in VL endemic areas. We conducted a systematic scoping review to assess the characteristics of published PKDL clinical studies, understand the scope of research and explore the feasibility and value of developing a PKDL individual patient data (IPD) platform.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature was conducted to identify PKDL clinical studies by searching the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Global Index Medicus, PASCAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Ovid Global Health, Cochrane Database and CENTRAL, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Only prospective studies in humans with PKDL diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up measurements between January 1973 and March 2023 were included. Extracted data includes variables on patient characteristics, treatment regimens, diagnostic methods, geographical locations, efficacy endpoints, adverse events and statistical methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 3,418 records were screened, of which 56 unique studies (n = 2,486 patients) were included in this review. Out of the 56 studies, 36 (64.3%) were from India (1983-2022), 12 (21.4%) from Sudan (1992-2021), 6 (10.7%) were from Bangladesh (1991-2019), and 2 (3.6%) from Nepal (2001-2007). Five (8.9%) studies were published between 1981-1990 (n = 193 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 1991-2000 (n = 230 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 2001-2010 (n = 198 patients), and 31 (55.4%) from 2011 onwards (n = 1,865 patients). Eight (14.3%) were randomised clinical trials, and 48 (85.7%) were non-randomised studies. The median post-treatment follow-up duration was 365 days (range: 90-540 days) in 8 RCTs and 360 days (range: 28-2,373 days) in 48 non-randomised studies. Disease diagnosis was based on clinical criterion in 3 (5.4%) studies, a mixture of clinical and parasitological methods in 47 (83.9%) and was unclear in 6 (10.7%) studies. Major drugs used for treatment were miltefosine (n = 636 patients), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) (n = 508 patients), and antinomy regimens (n = 454 patients). Ten other drug regimens were tested in 270 patients with less than 60 patients per regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified studies with very limited sample size for the three major drugs (miltefosine, L-AmB, and pentavalent antimony), while the number of patients combined across studies suggest that the IPD platform would be valuable. With the support of relevant stakeholders, the global PKDL community and sufficient financing, a PKDL IPD platform can be realised. This will allow for exploration of different aspects of treatment safety and efficacy, which can potentially guide future healthcare decisions and clinical practices.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Sepsis)

Background

The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain.

Objective

The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Sepsis trial.

Design setting and participants

The Mega-ROX Sepsis trial is an international randomised clinical trial that will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-patient registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We anticipate that between 10,000 and 13,000 patients with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU will be enrolled in this trial.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 days from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of patients discharged home.

Results and conclusions

Mega-ROX Sepsis will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The protocol and a prespecified approach to analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias.

Protocol for a systematic review of the evidence-based knowledge on the distribution, associated risk factors, the prevention and treatment modalities for noma

Introduction: Noma (cancrum oris) is a devastating opportunistic infection resulting in severe tissue destruction that affects mouth and oro-facial structures. There are substantial gaps in our current knowledge and understanding of its aetiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment efficacy, as well as its distribution and burden. Although observed worldwide, the disease impacts the most vulnerable and marginalised populations, and is most reported in young children from sub-Saharan Africa. Noma often presents alongside conditions of extreme poverty, malnutrition and poor environmental sanitation. This protocol paper outlines the methodology for a systematic review planned to exhaustively synthesize the findings of the available noma literature. The project aims to generate an account of the present state of knowledge about the various aspects of noma to aid in framing effective strategies and interventions to curb this disease which disproportionately afflicts the poorest in society. Methods and analysis: The following databases have been searched by a medical librarian from database inception to 7 December 2022: OVID (MEDLINE/ Embase/ CAB abstracts/ Global Health), Scopus, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, African Journals Online: Health, French language search: Pascal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. All primary research studies reporting on patients of any age diagnosed with noma will be eligible for inclusion in the review, including clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, other observational studies, case studies and case series. Data will be extracted from included studies to analyse the current evidence-based knowledge on the distribution, risk factors, microbiology, prevention and treatment modalities, and outcomes of noma. Ethics and dissemination: Results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal upon completion. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019124839 (08/03/2019)

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with nonhypoxic ischaemic acute brain injuries and conditions in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Brains)

Background

The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults who have nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions and are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain.

Objective

The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Brains trial.

Design setting and participants

Mega-ROX Brains is an international randomised clinical trial, which will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-participant, registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We expect to enrol between 7500 and 9500 participants with nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 d from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of participants discharged home.

Results and conclusions

Mega-ROX Brains will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy regimens on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults in the ICU with acute brain injuries and conditions. The protocol and planned analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12620000391976).

Infectious diseases data observatory (IDDO) visceral leishmaniasis library of clinical therapeutic studies: A protocol for a living systematic review of clinical studies

Introduction: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a vector-borne disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania. The disease is endemic in parts of South Asia, East Africa, South America and the Mediterranean region, with an estimated 50,000 to 90,000 cases occurring annually. A living systematic review of existing scientific literature is proposed to identify clinical drug efficacy studies against VL, conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods and analysis: The proposed living systematic review builds on a previous systematic review first carried out in 2016, and the current protocol is designed to capture any published or registered VL clinical study from Nov-2021 onwards. The following databases will be searched by a medical librarian: PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, as well as IMEMR, IMSEAR, and LILACS from the WHO Global Index Medicus. The systematic review will consider both randomised and non-randomised interventional studies, including single-armed studies. Ethics and dissemination: A database of eligible studies, including study characteristics, is openly available (https://www.iddo.org/tool/vl-surveyor) and will be continually updated every six months. All findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021284622 (29/11/2021)

The fragmented COVID-19 therapeutics research landscape: a living systematic review of clinical trial registrations evaluating priority pharmacological interventions

Background: Many available medicines have been evaluated as potential repurposed treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We summarise the registered study landscape for 32 priority pharmacological treatments identified following consultation with external experts of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition. Methods: All eligible trial registry records identified by systematic searches of the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as of 26th May 2021 were reviewed and extracted. A descriptive summary of study characteristics was performed. Results: We identified 1,314 registered studies that included at least one of the 32 priority pharmacological interventions. The majority (1,043, 79%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The sample size of the RCTs identified was typically small (median (25th, 75th percentile) sample size = 140 patients (70, 383)), i.e. individually powered only to show very large effects. The most extensively evaluated medicine was hydroxychloroquine (418 registered studies). Other widely studied interventions were convalescent plasma (n=208), ritonavir (n=189) usually combined with lopinavir (n=181), and azithromycin (n=147). Very few RCTs planned to recruit participants in low-income countries (n=14; 1.3%). A minority of studies (348, 26%) indicated a willingness to share individual participant data. The living systematic review data are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city Conclusions: There are many registered studies planning to evaluate available medicines as potential repurposed treatments of COVID-19. Most of these planned studies are small, and therefore substantially underpowered for most relevant endpoints. Very few are large enough to have any chance of providing enough convincing evidence to change policies and practices. The sharing of individual participant data (IPD) from these studies would allow pooled IPD meta-analyses which could generate definitive conclusions, but most registered studies did not indicate that they were willing to share their data.

Definitions matter: Heterogeneity of COVID-19 disease severity criteria and incomplete reporting compromise meta-analysis

Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation 'living' guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated, 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate; 3 mild-severe; 18 mild-critical; 5 moderate-severe; 8 moderate-critical; 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations; notably extrapolation of "lack of therapeutic benefit" shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19. Achieving this goal will require improved coordination of the main stakeholders developing treatment guidelines and medicine regulatory agencies. Open science, including prompt data sharing, should become the standard to allow IPD meta-analyses.

A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU

BACKGROUND

Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance.

RESULTS

The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations

Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results.  Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions:  Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence.  The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.