scholarly journals Characteristics of registered clinical trials assessing treatments for COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e039978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemalkumar B Mehta ◽  
Stephan Ehrhardt ◽  
Thomas J Moore ◽  
Jodi B Segal ◽  
G Caleb Alexander

ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcome(s)Trial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomesResultsOverall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.

10.2196/11924 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. e11924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Al-Durra ◽  
Robert P Nolan ◽  
Emily Seto ◽  
Joseph A Cafazzo ◽  
Gunther Eysenbach

2021 ◽  
Vol 232 ◽  
pp. 105-115
Author(s):  
Anubodh S. Varshney ◽  
David E. Wang ◽  
Ankeet S. Bhatt ◽  
Alexander Blood ◽  
Musa A. Sharkawi ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Strzebonska ◽  
Mateusz T Wasylewski ◽  
Lucja Zaborowska ◽  
Nico Riedel ◽  
Susanne Wieschowski ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo establish the rates of publication and reporting of results for interventional clinical trials across Polish academic medical centres (AMCs) completed between 2009 and 2013. We aim also to compare the publication and reporting success between adult and paediatric trials.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAMCs in Poland.ParticipantsAMCs with interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.Main outcome measureResults reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publishing via journal publication.ResultsWe identified 305 interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, completed between 2009 and 2013 and affiliated with at least one AMC. Overall, 243 of the 305 trials (79.7%) had been published as articles or posted their summary results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Results were posted within a year of study completion and/or published within 2 years of study completion for 131 trials (43.0%). Dissemination by both posting and publishing results in a timely manner was achieved by four trials (1.3%).ConclusionsOur cross-sectional analysis revealed that Polish AMCs fail to meet the expectation for timely disseminating the findings of all interventional clinical trials. Delayed dissemination and non-dissemination of trial results negatively affects decisions in healthcare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document