Perrine Janiaud1,2, Cathrine Axfors1,3, Janneke Van't Hooft1,4, Ramon Saccilotto1, Arnav Agarwal5, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog6, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis7, Valentin Danchev1,8, Ulrich Dirnagl9, Hannah Ewald6, Gerald Gartlehner10,11, Steven N Goodman1,12,13, Noah A Haber1, Angeliki Diotima Ioannidis14, John P A Ioannidis1,8,12,13,15, Mark P Lythgoe16, Wenyan Ma2, Malcolm Macleod17, Mario Malički1, Joerg J Meerpohl18,19, Yan Min1,12, David Moher20, Blin Nagavci18, Florian Naudet21, Christiane Pauli-Magnus2, Jack W O'Sullivan1,22, Nico Riedel9, Jan A Roth2,23, Mandy Sauermann23, Stefan Schandelmaier2,24, Andreas M Schmitt2,25, Benjamin Speich2,26, Paula R Williamson27, Lars G Hemkens1,2,15. 1. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University,, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department for Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. University Medical Library, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 8. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine,, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 9. QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 10. Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria. 11. RTI International, Research Triangle Park Laboratories, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 12. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 13. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 14. Molecular Toxicology Interdepartmental Program, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 15. Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRIC-B), Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 16. Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. 17. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 18. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 19. Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany. 20. Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 21. CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 [(Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes)],, University of Rennes 1, Rennes, France. 22. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 23. Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 24. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 25. Deparment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 26. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 27. MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats. Copyright:
Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats. Copyright:
Authors: David R Boulware; Matthew F Pullen; Ananta S Bangdiwala; Katelyn A Pastick; Sarah M Lofgren; Elizabeth C Okafor; Caleb P Skipper; Alanna A Nascene; Melanie R Nicol; Mahsa Abassi; Nicole W Engen; Matthew P Cheng; Derek LaBar; Sylvain A Lother; Lauren J MacKenzie; Glen Drobot; Nicole Marten; Ryan Zarychanski; Lauren E Kelly; Ilan S Schwartz; Emily G McDonald; Radha Rajasingham; Todd C Lee; Kathy H Hullsiek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Perrine Janiaud; Cathrine Axfors; Janneke Van't Hooft; Ramon Saccilotto; Arnav Agarwal; Christian Appenzeller-Herzog; Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; Valentin Danchev; Ulrich Dirnagl; Hannah Ewald; Gerald Gartlehner; Steven N Goodman; Noah A Haber; Angeliki Diotima Ioannidis; John P A Ioannidis; Mark P Lythgoe; Wenyan Ma; Malcolm Macleod; Mario Malički; Joerg J Meerpohl; Yan Min; David Moher; Blin Nagavci; Florian Naudet; Christiane Pauli-Magnus; Jack W O'Sullivan; Nico Riedel; Jan A Roth; Mandy Sauermann; Stefan Schandelmaier; Andreas M Schmitt; Benjamin Speich; Paula R Williamson; Lars G Hemkens Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-10-02
Authors: Nicolette J Wierdsma; Hinke M Kruizenga; Lotte Aml Konings; Daphne Krebbers; Jolein Rmc Jorissen; Marie-Helene I Joosten; Loes H van Aken; Flora M Tan; Ad A van Bodegraven; Maarten R Soeters; Peter Jm Weijs Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2021-04-20
Authors: Perrine Janiaud; Cathrine Axfors; Janneke Van't Hooft; Ramon Saccilotto; Arnav Agarwal; Christian Appenzeller-Herzog; Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; Valentin Danchev; Ulrich Dirnagl; Hannah Ewald; Gerald Gartlehner; Steven N Goodman; Noah A Haber; Angeliki Diotima Ioannidis; John P A Ioannidis; Mark P Lythgoe; Wenyan Ma; Malcolm Macleod; Mario Malički; Joerg J Meerpohl; Yan Min; David Moher; Blin Nagavci; Florian Naudet; Christiane Pauli-Magnus; Jack W O'Sullivan; Nico Riedel; Jan A Roth; Mandy Sauermann; Stefan Schandelmaier; Andreas M Schmitt; Benjamin Speich; Paula R Williamson; Lars G Hemkens Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-10-02
Authors: Nora Hutchinson; Katarzyna Klas; Benjamin G Carlisle; Jonathan Kimmelman; Marcin Waligora Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kimia Honarmand; Jeremy Penn; Arnav Agarwal; Reed Siemieniuk; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Jessica J Bartoszko; Dena Zeraatkar; Thomas Agoritsas; Karen Burns; Shannon M Fernando; Farid Foroutan; Long Ge; Francois Lamontagne; Mario A Jimenez-Mora; Srinivas Murthy; Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez; Per O Vandvik; Zhikang Ye; Bram Rochwerg Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 6.437