Geographical Representation of Low- and Middle-Income Countries in Randomized Clinical Trials for COVID-19

Global Trial Representation and Availability of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Background: Evaluating clinical trial representation for countries with different socio-demographic index (SDI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) availability for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Methods: CML incidence rates (IRs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) (1999-2019) from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation were analyzed. Trials investigating TKI use in CML were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov. Site data for eligible trials (N = 30) and DALYs were analyzed. TKI approvals, DALYs, and IRs were summarized by SDI. Results: North America (NA) had significant decreases in annual percent change (APC) in DALYs and incidence rates from 1999 to 2004. IRs were highest in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) and NA, while DALYs were highest in South Asia (SAsia) and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Countries in the high-SDI quintile were likely to have lower DALYs than lower-SDI quintiles. Differences in regional DALYs vs. sites in TKI trials were significant for SAsia, SSA, and ECA. High-SDI countries were included in all 30 trials, and TKI approvals were prominent in high-SDI (142) vs. low-SDI (14) countries. Conclusions: The inclusion of disproportionately affected countries during the design of and recruitment into clinical trials should occur, as should TKI availability. The lack of representation demonstrates healthcare disparities.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.

Results

Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Anticoagulation Strategies in Non-Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is uncertain. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive platform trial, we randomly assigned hospitalized adults with Covid-19 to low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis or intermediate-dose or low-dose plus aspirin. In response to external evidence, the aspirin intervention was discontinued and a therapeutic-dose arm added. The primary end point was death or the requirement for new organ support by day 28, analyzed with a Bayesian logistic model. Enrolment was closed as a result of operational constraints. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and March 2022, 1574 patients were randomly assigned. Among 1526 participants included in the analysis (India, n=1273; Australia and New Zealand, n=138; and Nepal, n=115), the primary outcome occurred in 35 (5.9%) of 596 in low-dose, 25 (4.2%) of 601 in intermediate-dose, 20 (7.2%) of 279 in low-dose plus aspirin, and 7 (14%) of 50 in therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Compared with low-dose thromboprophylaxis, the median adjusted odds ratio for the primary outcome for intermediate-dose was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.43 to 1.27; posterior probability of effectiveness [adjusted odds ratio<1; Pr], 86%), for low-dose plus aspirin 0.88 (95% CrI, 0.47 to 1.64; Pr, 65%), and for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation 2.22 (95% CrI, 0.77 to 6.20; Pr, 7%). Overall thrombotic and bleeding rates were 0.8% and 0.4%, respectively. There were 10 serious adverse reactions related to anticoagulation strategy, of which nine were grade 1 or 2 across study interventions and one grade 4 episode of retroperitoneal hematoma in a patient receiving intermediate-dose anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized non–critically ill adults with Covid-19, compared with low-dose, there was an 86% posterior probability that intermediate-dose, 65% posterior probability that low-dose plus aspirin, and a 7% posterior probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation reduced the odds of death or requirement for organ support. No treatment strategy met prespecified stopping criteria before trial closure, precluding definitive conclusions. (Funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council or Medical Research Future Fund Investigator and Practitioner Grants and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04483960.)

Conducting CNS trials during a public health emergency – Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: A joint ISCTM/ECNP working group consensus paper

A joint working group between the International Society of CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) and the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) was formed in the latter part of 2020 to explore possible ways to mitigate the impact of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in clinical trials while attempting to advance approaches and capabilities to bring new therapeutics to patients. The working group was tasked with developing guidelines for trial design modifications to assist sponsor companies in minimizing risks to data integrity, with a focus on regulatory, technological, operational, and methodological issues related to COVID-19.

To facilitate focused and transferable recommendations, three disease categories were selected as examples to demonstrate the breadth of solutions implemented across CNS clinical trials, as well as ongoing challenges. The categories studied reflected the interests and expertise of the working group, and included neurodegenerative diseases and dementia, mental health disorders, and rare/pediatric diseases. Herein, we describe interim recommendations from the working group as well as priorities for future public health emergencies, to inform permanent adoption in CNS clinical trial development and conduct.

Assessment of the COVID-19 vaccine market landscape in 2021 relative to challenges in low- and middle-income countries

To evaluate the early vaccine landscape relative to challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials in 2021 (n = 123) using a structured 13-point analytic framework. Supply sustainability was defined as a composite metric of four manufacturing and regulation variables. Vaccine desirability was defined as a composite metric of nine development and distribution variables. Ten vaccines in phases 2/3, 3, or 4 and five vaccines in phases 1 and 1/2 had a sustainability score equal to or above 0.5. Ten vaccines in phases 2/3, 3, or 4 and seven vaccines in phases 1 and 1/2 had a desirability score equal to or above 0.5. No vaccines in Phases 2/3, 3, or 4 met more than one distribution criterion. Structured assessment COVID-19 vaccine candidates in clinical trials in 2021 revealed numerous challenges to adequate access in LMICs. Key policy recommendations included increasing technology transfer to LMICs, developing international legal mechanisms to prevent export bans, and increasing investment in vaccine candidates with more favorable distribution profiles.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Drug Development in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Opportunity or Exploitation?

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) represent a diverse group of regions with varied cancer presentation. Drug development and accessibility across these regions have primarily been dependent on the trials initiated and conducted across high-income countries. Representation of LMIC regions in these trials in terms of study population has been minimal, leading to inequitable distribution of optimal and affordable cancer care. In spite of many challenges, LMICs have now increasingly been able to contribute to anticancer drug development. The opportunities present in LMICs must be explored and used in conjunction with due collaborative efforts from high-income countries, health care planners, and regulatory agencies. Global drug development trials should not only factor in suitable representation of LMICs but also design studies with pragmatic objectives and endpoints so that the trial results lead to equitable and affordable cancer care. Strengthening collaboration between cancer researchers from LMICs and high-income countries and empowering the local investigator with adequate resources will help remove current disparities.