Characteristics of published/registered clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review

A Systematic Analysis of COVID-19 Clinical Trials Registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) database is a registry of various trials conducted in India and this study scrutinized the studies registered for COVID-19 from the database to detect patterns in trial design, appraising the target regions of therapies and comprehending the terrain of research endeavors.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional study that analyzed the registered trials for COVID-19 between March 2020 and September 2023. A trial search was conducted on the CTRI database to include all types of studies registered for COVID-19 with keywords like "COVID" and "coronavirus" and studies conducted on conditions other than COVID-19 were excluded. The data regarding study characteristics were noted under various sections in a preformed proforma.

RESULTS

A total of 807 trials were taken for final analysis and there were about 344 prospective and 260 retrospective interventional trials, 35 prospective and 165 retrospective observational studies, and two prospective and one retrospective post-marketing surveillance study. The majority of the studies had duration under 12 months (91%). The maximum number of studies were registered from AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) and allied therapies (n = 283), with about 104 types of interventions, followed by the drug category having 119 trials registered and about 57 types of interventions. Kabasura Kudineer and yoga in the AYUSH category, molnupiravir, colchicine, and favipiravir in the drug category, and tocilizumab and convalescent plasma among biologics were some common interventions used. The majority of trials did not mention the trial phase and declared it as not applicable (54%), whereas 15% were registered as phase 2 and 13% as phase 3. About 54% of the studies were randomized and randomized parallel-group design (20%) was the most common study design. Only 6% of the trials were post-graduate thesis and the majority of the trials (n = 535) denied sharing their individual participant data. Only 0.86% and 0.61% of the trials were terminated and suspended, respectively, denoting proper design and conduct of the trials.

CONCLUSION

In the CTRI database, the majority of trials were prospective interventional studies, with a predominance of AYUSH therapies and drug interventions. Common interventions included Kabasura Kudineer and yoga in AYUSH, and molnupiravir, colchicine, and favipiravir in drugs. Most studies had durations under 12 months and randomized parallel-group design was the most common study design. The intention to use and promote an indigenous system of medicine looks promising in the absence of any definite therapy. A minute number of registered suspended and terminated trials might be a positive picture of meticulously designed and executed trials even during a pandemic situation in India.

Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.

Ocular manifestations of COVID-19: A systematic review of current evidence

Introduction

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, commonly presents with symptoms such as fever and shortness of breath but can also affect other organs. There is growing evidence pointing to potential eye complications. In this article, we aim to systematically review the ocular manifestations of COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to explore the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. We searched online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to September 4, 2023. After a two-stage screening process and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligible articles were advanced to the data extraction phase. The PRISMA checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for quality and bias risk assessments.

Results

We selected and extracted data from 42 articles. Most of the studies were cross-sectional (n = 33), with the highest number conducted in Turkey (n = 10). The most frequent ocular manifestation was conjunctivitis, reported in 24 articles, followed by photophobia, burning, chemosis, itching, and ocular pain. Most studies reported complete recovery from these manifestations; however, one study mentioned visual loss in two patients.

Conclusion

In general, ocular manifestations of COVID-19 appear to resolve either spontaneously or with supportive treatments. For more severe cases, both medical treatment and surgery have been employed, with the outcomes suggesting that complete recoveries are attainable.

A comprehensive review of adverse events to drugs used in COVID-19 patients: Recent clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Since the breakthrough of the pandemic, several drugs have been used to treat COVID-19 patients. This review aims to gather information on adverse events (AE) related to most drugs used in this context.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to find articles that contained information about AE in COVID-19 patients. We analysed and reviewed the most relevant studies in the Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science. The most frequent AE identified were grouped in our qualitative analysis by System Organ Class (SOC), the highest level of the MedDRA medical terminology for each of the drugs studied.

RESULTS

The most frequent SOCs among the included drugs are investigations (n = 7 drugs); skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n = 5 drugs); and nervous system disorders, infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, and metabolism and nutrition disorders (n = 4 drugs). Other SOCs also emerged, such as general disorders and administration site conditions, renal and urinary disorders, vascular disorders and cardiac disorders (n = 3 drugs). Less frequent SOC were eye disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, and immune system disorders (n = 2 drugs). Psychiatric disorders, and injury, poisoning and procedural complications were also reported (n = 1 drug).

CONCLUSIONS

Some SOCs seem to be more frequent than others among the COVID-19 drugs included, although neither of the studies included reported causality analysis. For that purpose, further clinical studies with robust methodologies, as randomised controlled trials, should be designed and performed.