Rigorous Clinical Trial Design in Public Health Emergencies Is Essential

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center

Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.

Evaluation of Salivary Biomarkers of Periodontal Disease Based on Smoking Status: A Systematic Review

Saliva is a useful biomarker for diagnosing oral health conditions, including periodontal disease (PD). Smoking is a risk factor for PD. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the salivary biomarkers associated with PD based on smoking status. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and Web of Sciences databases was conducted up to 1 January 2021 using key terms relevant to the topic of our research and Cochrane methodology and improved with searching a gray literature resource. The methodological quality of all included studies was assessed with the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Seven studies were included. Smokers had increased levels of malondialdehyde, sialic acid, salivary cortisol, salivary interleukin 1β, albumin, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP), and the pyridinoline cross-linked carboxyterminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP), as well as decreased levels of superoxide dismutase, activity of lactate dehydrogenase, activity of enzyme activity of β-glucuronidase, uric acid, matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8)/TIMP-1 ratio, and combinations of MMP-8 and ICTP. However, mixed results were observed some studies in detecting glutathione peroxidase, MMP-8, and MMP-14. The results were interpreted with caution because of limitations in the number of included studies and the study design. Some salivary biomarkers are potentially useful in combination or alone for diagnosing PD. Methodological and systematic studies are needed to develop more effective biomarkers.

Characteristics analysis for clinical study design relating to COVID-19 based on the database of ClinicalTrials.gov

Background and Objective

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak is currently ravaging populations worldwide. Many studies were registered and conducted in rapid response to the epidemic, but how to choose the proper design for clinical trials remains the main concern. This study aimed to determine the fundamental characteristics of study design during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide references for other emerging infectious diseases.

Methods

We searched the database of ClinicalTrials.gov with the keyword “COVID-19” and compared the results with the design features of other conventional studies except for COVID-19.

Results

From January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021, 55,334 trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Of all the registered trials, 6,408 were related to COVID-19 (11.58%). There were significant differences in the proportion of observational studies between COVID-19 (43.48%) and others (23.27%). The completion rate of observational trials and interventional trials in COVID-19 was 29.04% and 25.84%, respectively. COVID-19 trials showed a higher rate of completion than others (P<0.01). The time distribution and trend of observational studies and interventional studies varied considerably.

Conclusion

Appropriately designed trials can help to improve research efficiency and reduce the possibility of research failure. In addition to randomized controlled trials, observational and single-armed studies are also worth considering.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation.

DESIGN

ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

SUMMARY

The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

The role and challenges of cluster randomised trials for global health

Evaluating whether an intervention works when trialled in groups of individuals can pose complex challenges for clinical research. Cluster randomised controlled trials involve the random allocation of groups or clusters of individuals to receive an intervention, and they are commonly used in global health research. In this paper, we describe the potential reasons for the increasing popularity of cluster trials in low-income and middle-income countries. We also draw on key areas of global health research for an assessment of common trial planning practices, and we address their methodological shortcomings and pitfalls. Lastly, we discuss alternative approaches for population-level intervention trials that could be useful for research undertaken in low-income and middle-income countries for situations in which the use of cluster randomisation might not be appropriate.

Effect of Discontinuing vs Continuing Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Days Alive and Out of the Hospital in Patients Admitted With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objective

To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020).

Interventions

Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression.

Results

Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

Polio, AIDS, and Ebola: A Recurrent Ethical Dilemma

During the 2014 West African outbreak, a dilemma emerged about the ethics of conducting randomized placebo-controlled trials in the midst of a rapidly spreading, devastating epidemic for which there was no effective treatment. The dilemma has in fact has deep historic roots; it has appeared in several previous fearsome epidemics-during the poliomyelitis epidemic in the 1930s-1950s, and again during the AIDS epidemic in the1980s-1990s. Moreover, ethical and social questions characterizing each of these epidemics-the increased risks of withholding potentially life-saving drugs for people assigned to a control arm and the damaging effect on eroding community trust-were conceptualized beforehand in the 1925 novel Arrowsmith. A historical analysis both reaffirms that rigorous placebo-controlled trials remain indispensable tools in epidemic settings and also provides guidance on how to approach the ethical and social issues that will likely arise when these trials are carried out in future epidemic emergencies.

Remdesivir for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): More promising but still unproven

From December 2019 to May 22, 2020 the emerging and ever-increasing pandemic of coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) had no effective and safe treatment. Not surprisingly, remdesivir attracted worldwide attention. In a trial published online ahead of print, of 1063 patients, 541 were assigned at random to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. The primary prespecified endpoint was mean recovery time and patients assigned to remdesivir had a mean recovery time of 11 days versus 15 days for those assigned a random to placebo. (p < 0.001). With respect to mortality, the prespecfied secondary endpoint, 34/538 patients in remdesivir and 54/521 in placebo died after 28 days, yielding a possible 31% reduction that approached but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.059). The only other published trial of remdesivir randomized 237 patients in China. In that trial, 178 patients were assigned at random to remdesivir compared to 79 assigned to placebo. Those assigned at random to remdesivir experienced a possible but nonsignificant 23% faster time to clinical improvement of 21 days compared with 23 for those assigned to placebo [hazard ratio 1.23 [95% CI, 0·87-1.75)]. With respect to mortality there was no suggestion of any benefit. In fact, the mortality rate in those receiving remdesivir was 15% (22/150) compared with 13% (10/77) for those assigned to placebo. Ongoing randomized trials should be designed, conducted and analyzed to provide the necessary reliable data on mortality to resolve the remaining clinical uncertainties.

Continuing versus suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: Impact on adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)--The BRACE CORONA Trial

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) expression may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

Design

BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 34 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, and troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal-proBNP, and D-dimer levels.

Summary

BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19.

Evidence-Based Practical Guidance for the Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in 2020

This practical guidance, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, the International Union of Angiology and the European Venous Forum, aims to provide physicians with clear guidance, based on current best evidence-based data, on clinical strategies to manage antithrombotic strategies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Clinical trials in the time of a pandemic

The first rumblings about a new coronavirus spreading in China were heard in January 2020. By the end of that month, the World Health Organization, recognizing the severity of the disease and the potential for global spread, had declared a public health emergency. By February 2020, cases had been identified in multiple countries, clinical trials of treatments with some biological plausibility had begun in China, and the initial steps of vaccine development were underway. In mid-March, by which time countries around the world were experiencing rapidly increasing numbers of cases and deaths, the World Health Organization categorized the outbreak as a pandemic. This new coronavirus was designated SARS-COV-2 in recognition of its similarity to the coronavirus responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2002–2003. The race is on to develop treatments that can mitigate the severe consequences of infection and vaccines that can prevent infection and/or diminish the severity of disease in those who do get infected. Many challenges face these development efforts. Some are similar to those faced in the past; others are new. The urgency of finding ways to treat, and ultimately prevent, the consequences of this new and potentially deadly infection has led to unprecedented focus on clinical trials.

Staying updated on COVID-19: Social media to amplify science in thrombosis and hemostasis

Coronavirus disease 2019 is the most serious pandemic of the Internet era. The number of scientific manuscripts published on the subject daily has been overwhelming. The use of Twitter enables interested health professionals and the public to stay informed.

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these.

METHODS

A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data.

RESULTS

Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.

COVID-19: Coagulopathy, Risk of Thrombosis, and the Rationale for Anticoagulation

The novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) is caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and is characterized by an exaggerated inflammatory response that can lead to severe manifestations such as adult respiratory syndrome, sepsis, coagulopathy, and death in a proportion of patients. Among other factors and direct viral effects, the increase in the vasoconstrictor angiotensin II, the decrease in the vasodilator angiotensin, and the sepsis-induced release of cytokines can trigger a coagulopathy in COVID-19. A coagulopathy has been reported in up to 50% of patients with severe COVID-19 manifestations. An increase in d-dimer is the most significant change in coagulation parameters in severe COVID-19 patients, and progressively increasing values can be used as a prognostic parameter indicating a worse outcome. Limited data suggest a high incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in up to 40% of patients, despite the use of a standard dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in most cases. In addition, pulmonary microvascular thrombosis has been reported and may play a role in progressive lung failure. Prophylactic LMWH has been recommended by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) and the American Society of Hematology (ASH), but the best effective dosage is uncertain. Adapted to the individual risk of thrombosis and the d-dimer value, higher doses can be considered, especially since bleeding events in COVID-19 are rare. Besides the anticoagulant effect of LMWH, nonanticoagulant properties such as the reduction in interleukin 6 release have been shown to improve the complex picture of coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19.

Special issues raised by evolving areas of clinical research

Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.

Evaluating Promising Investigational Medical Countermeasures: Recommendations in the Absence of Guidelines

Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases pose growing global public health threats. However, research on and development of medical countermeasures (MCMs) for such pathogens is limited by the sporadic and unpredictable nature of outbreaks, lack of financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop interventions for many of the diseases, lack of clinical research capacity in areas where these diseases are endemic, and the ethical dilemmas related to conducting scientific research in humanitarian emergencies. Hence, clinicians providing care for patients with emerging diseases are often faced with making clinical decisions about the safety and effectiveness of experimental MCMs, based on limited or no human safety, preclinical, or even earlier product research or historical data, for compassionate use. Such decisions can have immense impact on current and subsequent patients, the public health response, and success of future clinical trials. We highlight these dilemmas and underscore the need to proactively set up procedures that allow early and ethical deployment of MCMs as part of clinical trials. When clinical trials remain difficult to deploy, we present several suggestions of how compassionate use of off-label and unlicensed MCMs can be made more informed and ethical. We highlight several collaborations seeking to address these gaps in data and procedures to inform future clinical and public health decision making.