Review of registered clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Babaei F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753306 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Review of registered clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19.
Babaei Fatemeh F Mirzababaei Mohammadreza M Nassiri-Asl Marjan M Hosseinzadeh Hossein H
Drug development research 20201129 4
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, but now more than 200 countries have been affected and the coronavirus pandemic is still ongoing. The severity of COVID-19 symptoms can range from mild to severe. FDA approved remdesivir as a treatment of COVID-19 so far. Various clinical trials are underway to find an effective method to treat patients wit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesDue to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, many countries have designed clinical trials to find efficient treatments. We aimed to critically report the characteristics of all the registered and published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on COVID-19, and summarize the evaluation of potential therapies developed in various regions.Evidence acquisitionWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases to retrieve all the relevant studies up to July 19, 2021, in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. We included all English-language published/registered RCTs on COVID-19, and excluded non-RCT, in-vitro/in-vivo, editorials, and review studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated all the records, and then analyzed by using SPSS 17.ResultsWithin 3018 included studies, 2801 (92.8%) and 217 (7.2%) were registered or published RCTs consisting of about 600 synthetic drugs. Herbal medicines have been studied in 23 trials (10.6%) among the published RCTs and in 357 registered RCTs (12.7%). Hydroxychloroquine 23 (10.6%) and convalescent plasma 194 (6.9%) alone or in combination with other agents were the most frequently used interventions in published and registered RCTs, respectively. Most published RCTs have been conducted in Western Pacific Region (WPRO) (50 trials, 23.0%) including 45 trials from China. Also, a greater proportion of registered RCTs have been conducted in the Region of the Americas (PAHO) (885 trials, 31.6%) including 596 RCTs from the United States (U.S). Globally, 283 registered trials have been conducted to assess new developed vaccines for COVID or previously established for other disorders.ConclusionThe present study highlighted the wide range of potential therapeutic agents in published and registered COVID-19 clinical trials across a wide range of regions. However, it is urgently required to global coordination in order to conduct more well-designed trials and progress in discovering safe and effective treatments.
| S-EPMC8581284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics.MethodsThis study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsA total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60-200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94-366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low.ConclusionsIntensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future.
| S-EPMC7338108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 as a global pandemic. Though antiviral drugs and antimalarial drugs are considered treatment options for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no specific antivirals are currently available for its treatment. Efficient use of drug discovery approaches including repurposing or repositioning of drugs used in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is considered recently. The widespread application of corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 should be backed with careful documented pragmatic research of its use in this context.Main bodyThis article aims to analyze various trials registered across the globe providing an overall picture of the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19. An extensive search was conducted on the clinical trial registries around the world to identify all the trials reporting information regarding the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. Our initial search returned 231 trials, out of which 60 trials were finally included in the analysis. Fifty-six studies were interventional trials, and all the trials had clearly defined primary and secondary outcomes of interest, of which only 11 trials had evaluation of respiratory rate as one of their outcomes.ConclusionFew preliminary trial findings show promising results and recommend the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the severe form of the disease; however, there is insufficient data to prove its benefits over its risks. Routine use of corticosteroids should be favored only after a better insight is obtained, with the completion of these trials.
| S-EPMC7968560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the characteristics of clinical trials that focused on COVID-19 patients with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and the variability in CRS definitions. Two authors independently searched three clinical trial registries and included interventional clinical trials on COVID-19 hospitalized patients that required at least one elevated inflammatory biomarker. Relevant data, including the type and cutoff of the measured biomarker, oxygen/respiratory criteria, fever, radiologic criteria, and medications, were summarized. A total of 47 clinical trials were included. The included studies considered the following criteria: oxygen/respiratory criteria in 42 trials (89%), radiologic criteria in 29 trials (62%), and fever in 6 trials (18%). Serum ferritin was measured in 35 trials (74%), CRP in 34 trials (72%), D-dimer in 26 trials (55%), LDH in 24 trials (51%), lymphocyte count in 14 trials (30%), and IL-6 in 8 trials (17%). The cutoff values were variable for the included biomarkers. The most commonly used medications were tocilizumab, in 15 trials (32%), and anakinra in 10 trials (24.4%). This systematic review found high variability in CRS definitions and associated biomarker cutoff values in COVID-19 clinical trials. We call for a standardized definition of CRS, especially in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8229812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA considerable proportion of individuals report persistent, debilitating and disparate symptoms despite resolution of acute COVID-19 infection (i.e. long COVID). Numerous registered clinical trials investigating treatment of long COVID are expected to be completed in 2021-2022. The aim of this review is to provide a scope of the candidate treatments for long COVID. A synthesis of ongoing long COVID clinical trials can inform methodologic approaches for future studies and identify key research vistas.MethodsScoping searches were conducted on multiple national and international clinical trial registries. Interventional trials testing treatments for long COVID were selected. The search timeline was from database inception to 28 July 2021.ResultsThis scoping review included 59 clinical trial registration records from 22 countries with a total projected enrolment of 6718. Considerable heterogeneity was exhibited amongst component records with respect to the characterization of long COVID (i.e. name, symptoms- including frequency, intensity, trajectory and duration- mode of ascertainment, and definition of acute phase). In addition, the majority of proposed interventions were non-pharmacological and either targeted multiple long COVID symptoms simultaneously, or focussed on treatment of respiratory/pulmonary sequelae. Multiple interventions targeted inflammation, as well as tissue oxygenation and cellular recovery, and several interventions were repurposed from analogous conditions.ConclusionsThe results of this scoping review investigating ongoing clinical trials testing candidate treatments for long COVID suggest that a greater degree of definitional stringency and homogeneity is needed insofar as the characterization of long COVID and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
| S-EPMC8935463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic impact worldwide and presented unprecedented challenges for clinical and translational medicine. We assess the impact of COVID-19 on submitted and completed interventional clinical trials that have been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. After classifying over 85% of the registered clinical trials by their source, we carefully model the number of submitted and completed trials before and after March 2020. Overall, we find minimal impact of COVID-19 on the number of submitted clinical trials, although a much more substantial impact is observed for completed clinical trials. We also show that clinical trials with a pharmaceutical sponsor were more successful at completing trials during the pandemic compared to the trials with academic/hospital/government sponsors.
| S-EPMC8212742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo characterise current COVID-19-related research activities.DesignCross-sectional analysis.SettingClinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov testing interventions relevant to COVID-19.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov was searched for COVID-19 and related terms to identify trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 1 May 2020 that test interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcome measuresWe classified trials according to intervention type, and report key trial characteristics including recruitment status, location, funder type, target enrolment number, intervention model (single group, randomised or sequential assignment) and projected completion date.ResultsOf the 630 identified clinical trials related to COVID-19, 509 (81%) involved the study of drugs or biological agents. Of these trials of drugs and biologics, 305 (60%) use an open-label design, 43 (8%) are single blinded (participant only) and 161 (32%) are double blinded (participant and investigator). 94 (18%) of the drug/biological trials are non-randomised. Either hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine is administered as part of the study protocol in 152 (30%) of the drug/biological trials. The total planned enrolment for these hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine trials is over 200 000 participants, which represents 65% of the total planned enrolment for all registered trials of drugs or biologics. There are also at least 25 registered trials of azithromycin (n=53), convalescent plasma (n=38), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=30), stem cell treatments (n=29) and tocilizumab (n=25). 142 trials were registered in the first 3 months of 2020, and 488 trials were registered between 1 April and 1 May 2020.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate a robust research response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though many of the currently planned and ongoing trials focus on a small number of potential therapies, and many also lack essential design features and power necessary to provide accurate treatment effect estimates.
| S-EPMC7500290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic.MethodsClinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported.ResultsOverall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates.ConclusionsCOVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.
| S-EPMC10687901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the beginning of the year, the deadly coronavirus pandemic, better known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), brought the entire world to an unprecedented halt. In tandem with the global scenario, researchers in India are actively engaged in the conduct of clinical research to counter the pandemic. This review attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the COVID-19 research in India including design aspects, through the clinical trials registered in the Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) till June 5, 2020. One hundred and twenty two registered trials on COVID-19 were extracted from the CTRI database. These trials were categorized into modern medicine (n=42), traditional medicine (n=67) and miscellaneous (n=13). Of the 42 modern medicine trials, 28 were on repurposed drugs, used singly (n=24) or in combination (n=4). Of these 28 trials, 23 were to evaluate their therapeutic efficacy in different severities of the disease. There were nine registered trials on cell- and plasma-based therapies, two phytopharmaceutical trials and three vaccine trials. The traditional medicine trials category majorly comprised Ayurveda (n=45), followed by homeopathy (n=14) and others (n=8) from Yoga, Siddha and Unani. Among the traditional medicine category, 31 trials were prophylactic and 36 were therapeutic, mostly conducted on asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. This review would showcase the research being conducted on COVID-19 in the country and highlight the research gaps to steer further studies.
| S-EPMC8184082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis article aims to summarize the key characteristics of registered trials of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), in terms of their spatial and temporal distributions, types of design and interventions, and patient characteristics among others.MethodsA comprehensive search of the registered COVID-19 trials has been performed on platforms including ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (CHiCTR), Australian Clinical Trials Registry, Britain's National Research Register (BNRR), Current Control Trials (CCT), and Glaxo Smith Kline Register. Trials registered at the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak are included, without language restrictions. For each study, the registration information, study design, and administrator information are collected and summarized.ResultsA total of 220 registered trials were evaluated as of February 27, 2020. Hospital-initiated trials were the majority and account for 80% of the sample. Among the trials, pilot studies and phase 4 trials are more common and represent 35% and 19.1% of the sample, respectively. The median sample size of the registered trials is 100, with interquartile range 60-240. Further, 45.9% of the trials mentioned information on a data monitoring committee. 54.5% of the trials did not specify the disease severity among patients they intend to recruit. Four types of interventions are most common in the experimental groups across the registered studies: antiviral drugs, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), biological agents, and hormone drugs. Among them, the TCM and biological agents are frequently used in pilot study and correspond to a variety of primary endpoints. In contrast, trials with antiviral drugs have more targeted primary outcomes such as "COVID-19 nucleic acid test" and "28-day mortality."ConclusionsWe provide an evidence mapping and analysis of registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China. In particular, it is critical for ongoing and future studies to refine their research hypothesis and better identify their intervention therapies and the corresponding primary outcomes. It is also imperative for multiple public health divisions and research institutions to work together for integrative clinical data capture and sharing, with a common objective of improving future studies that evaluate COVID-19 interventions.
| S-EPMC7268588 | biostudies-literature