1
|
Abogunrin S, Adelakun A, Akinola T, Bashir U, Fagbohungbe B, Mueller E, Neeser K, Ogunnubi O, Parekh K. Challenges of consolidating evidence collected during a pandemic and lessons for the future. Curr Med Res Opin 2024; 40:1311-1322. [PMID: 38975733 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2377676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2023] [Revised: 07/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/02/2024] [Indexed: 07/09/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To illustrate the challenges encountered when gathering rapidly synthesized evidence in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS In this article, we describe the challenges encountered when we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of treatments for severe COVID-19. The methods of the SLR are described in full, to show the context of our objectives. Then we use the results of the SLR to demonstrate the problems of producing synthesized evidence in this setting. RESULTS Various challenges were identified during this SLR. These were primarily a result of heterogeneity in the study methodology of eligible studies. Definitions of the patient populations and outcome measurements were highly variable and the majority of studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, preventing quantitative synthesis of the collated evidence. CONCLUSION Consolidating evidence from RCTs evaluating COVID-19 interventions was problematic. Guidance is needed for scenarios with high rapid output in primary research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alex Adelakun
- Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Usman Bashir
- Community Medicine Department, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria
| | | | | | | | - Oluseun Ogunnubi
- Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine of the University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zyoud SH. Global landscape of COVID-19 research: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Exp Med 2024; 24:14. [PMID: 38252392 PMCID: PMC10803477 DOI: 10.1007/s10238-023-01254-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
Abstract
The emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 has resulted in a significant global health crisis. Consequently, extensive research was published to understand and mitigate the disease. In particular, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been considered the benchmark for assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions. Hence, the present study strives to present a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape pertaining to RCTs and COVID-19. A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Scopus database. The search parameters included articles published from 2020 to 2022 using keywords specifically related to COVID-19 and RCTs. The data were analyzed using various bibliometric indicators. The volume of publications, contributions of countries and institutions, funding agencies, active journals, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, and future research direction analysis were specifically analyzed. A total of 223,480 research articles concerning COVID-19 were published, with 3,727 of them related to RCTs and COVID-19. The ten most productive countries collectively produced 75.8% of the documents, with the United States leading the way by contributing 31.77%, followed by the UK with 14.03% (n = 523), China with 12.96% (n = 483) and Canada with 7.16% (n = 267). Trials (n = 173, 4.64%), BMJ Open (n = 81, 2.17%), PLOS One (n = 73, 1.96%) and JAMA Network Open (n = 53, 1.42%) were the most active journals in publishing articles related to COVID-19 RCTs. The co-occurrence analysis identified four clusters of research areas: the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, mental health strategies to cope with the impact of the pandemic, the use of monoclonal antibodies to treat patients with COVID-19, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19 research. This paper offers a detailed examination of the global research environment pertaining to RCTs and their use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The comprehensive body of research findings was found to have been generated by the collaborative efforts of multiple countries, institutions, and funding organizations. The predominant research areas encompassed COVID-19 vaccines, strategies for mental health, monoclonal antibodies, and systematic reviews. This information has the potential to aid researchers, policymakers, and funders in discerning areas of weakness and establishing areas of priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sa'ed H Zyoud
- Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, 44839, Palestine.
- Clinical Research Centre, An-Najah National University Hospital, Nablus, 44839, Palestine.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dey SK, Rahman MM, Siddiqi UR, Howlader A, Tushar MA, Qazi A. Global landscape of COVID-19 vaccination progress: insight from an exploratory data analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2022; 18:2025009. [PMID: 35050838 PMCID: PMC8993095 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.2025009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Revised: 12/02/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The next big step in combating the COVID-19 pandemic will be gaining widespread acceptance of a vaccination campaign for SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to report detailed Spatiotemporal analysis and result-oriented storytelling of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign across the globe. An exploratory data analysis (EDA) with interactive data visualization using various python libraries was conducted. The results show that, globally, with the rapid vaccine development and distribution, people from the different regions are also getting vaccinated and revealing their positive intent toward the COVID-19 vaccination. The outcomes of this exploration also established that mass vaccination campaigns in populated countries including Brazil, China, India, and the US reduced the number of daily COVID-19 deaths and confirmed cases. Overall, our findings contribute to current policy-relevant research by establishing a link between increasing immunization rates and lowering COVID-19's rising curve.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samrat Kumar Dey
- School of Science and Technology (SST), Bangladesh Open University (BOU), Gazipur, Bangladesh
| | - Md. Mahbubur Rahman
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE), Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Umme Raihan Siddiqi
- Department of Physiology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College (SHSMC), Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Arpita Howlader
- Department of Computer and Communication Engineering (CCE), Patuakhali Science and Technology University (PSTU), Patuakhali, Bangladesh
| | - Md. Arifuzzaman Tushar
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE), Dhaka International University (DIU), Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Atika Qazi
- Centre for Lifelong Learning, University Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kudhail K, Thompson J, Mathews V, Morrison B, Hemming K. Randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Int J Infect Dis 2022; 122:72-80. [PMID: 35597556 PMCID: PMC9113951 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.05.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2022] [Revised: 05/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to describe the prevalence of risks of bias in randomized trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. METHODS Systematic review and risk of bias assessment performed by two independent reviewers of a random sample of 40 randomized trials of therapeutic interventions for moderate-severe COVID-19. We used the RoB 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias, which evaluates bias under five domains as well as an overall assessment of each trial as high or low risk of bias. RESULTS Of the 40 included trials, 19 (47%) were at high risk of bias, and this was particularly frequent in trials from low-middle income countries (11/14, 79%). Potential deviations to intended interventions (i.e., control participants accessing experimental treatments) were considered a potential source of bias in some studies (14, 35%), as was the risk due to selective reporting of results (6, 15%). The randomization process was considered at low risk of bias in most studies (34, 95%), as were missing data (36, 90%) and measurement of the outcome (35, 87%). CONCLUSION Many randomized trials evaluating COVID-19 interventions are at risk of bias, particularly those conducted in low-middle income countries. Biases are mostly due to deviations from intended interventions and partly due to the selection of reported results. The use of placebo control and publicly available protocol can mitigate many of these risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kavina Kudhail
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Thompson
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Vivek Mathews
- College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Breanna Morrison
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Karla Hemming
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom,Corresponding author at: Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wüstner S, Hogger S, Gartner-Freyer D, Lebioda A, Schley K, Leverkus F. Clinical Evidence Informing Treatment Guidelines on Repurposed Drugs for Hospitalized Patients During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: Corticosteroids, Anticoagulants, (Hydroxy)chloroquine. Front Public Health 2022; 10:804404. [PMID: 35252090 PMCID: PMC8896497 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.804404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide, overwhelming hospitals with severely ill patients and posing the urgent need for clinical evidence to guide patient care. First treatment options available were repurposed drugs to fight inflammation, coagulopathy, and viral replication. A vast number of clinical studies were launched globally to test their efficacy and safety. Our analysis describes the development of global evidence on repurposed drugs, in particular corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients based on different study types. We track the incorporation of clinical data in international and national treatment guidelines and identify factors that characterize studies and analyses with the greatest impact on treatment recommendations. METHODS A literature search in MEDLINE was conducted to assess the clinical evidence on treatment with corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first year of the pandemic. Adoption of the evidence from this clinical data in treatment guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), Germany, and United States (US) was evaluated over time. RESULTS We identified 106 studies on corticosteroids, 141 studies on anticoagulants, and 115 studies on (hydroxy)chloroquine. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies; some were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and a few were platform trials. These studies were compared to studies directly and indirectly referred to in WHO (7 versions), German (5 versions), and US (21 versions) guidelines. We found that initially large, well-adjusted, mainly retrospective cohort studies and ultimately large platform trials or coordinated meta-analyses of RCTs provided best available clinical evidence supporting treatment recommendations. DISCUSSION Particularly early in the pandemic, evidence for the efficacy and safety of repurposed drugs was of low quality, since time and scientific rigor seemed to be competing factors. Pandemic preparedness, coordinated efforts, and combined analyses were crucial to generating timely and robust clinical evidence that informed national and international treatment guidelines on corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine. Multi-arm platform trials with master protocols and coordinated meta-analyses proved particularly successful, with researchers joining forces to answer the most pressing questions as quickly as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sara Hogger
- AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out the relevant problems. PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) was searched for SRs on COVID-19 treatments as of 2 June 2020. Excel 2016 was used for descriptive analyses of the extracted data. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for collaborations between countries and institutions. A total of 189 SRs were included, which were registered by 301 institutions from 39 countries. China (69, 36.50%) exhibited the highest output. Cooperation between countries was not close enough. As an institution, the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (7, 3.70%) had the highest output. There was close cooperation between institutions. Interventions included antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), respiratory support (16, 8.47%), circulatory support (11, 5.82%), plasma therapy for convalescent patients (11, 5.82%), immunotherapy (9, 4.76%), TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) treatment (9, 4.76%), rehabilitation treatment (5, 2.65%), anti-inflammatory treatment (16, 8.47%) and other treatments (31, 16.40%). Concerning antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), the most commonly used antiviral agents were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (26, 13.76%), followed by remdesivir (12, 6.35%), lobinavir/ritonavir (11, 5.82%), favipiravir (5, 2.65%), ribavirin (5, 2.65%), interferon (5, 2.65%), abiron (4, 2.12%) and abidor (4, 2.12%). The most frequently used primary and secondary outcomes were the mortality rate (92, 48.68%) and hospital stay length (48, 25.40%), respectively. The expression of the outcomes was not standardised. Many COVID-19 SRs on treatment modalities have been registered, with a low completion rate. Although there was some collaboration between countries and institutions in the currently registered SRs on treatment modalities for COVID-19 on PROSPERO, cooperation between countries should be further enhanced. More attention should be directed towards identifying deficiencies of outcome measures, and the standardisation of results should be maximised.
Collapse
|