| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I-2=0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with increased mortality, and there was no benefit from chloroquine.
|
|
| 2. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cord, Kimberly A. Mc., et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting Transparency and Completeness in Trials : Paper 2 - Reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 141, s. 175-186
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Registries are important data sources for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but reporting of how they are used may be inadequate. The objective was to describe the current adequacy of reporting of RCTs using registries.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a database of trials using registries from a scoping review supporting the development of the 2021 CONSORT extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Reporting completeness of 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items was assessed.RESULTS: We assessed reports of 47 RCTs that used a registry, published between 2011 and 2018. Of the 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items, 6 were adequately reported in at least half of reports (2 in at least 80%). The 7 other items were related to routinely collected data source eligibility (32% adequate), data linkage (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for outcome assessment (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for participant recruitment (0% adequate), participant flow (9% adequate), registry funding (6% adequate) and interpretation of results in consideration of registry use (25% adequate).CONCLUSION: Reporting of trials using registries was often poor, particularly details on data linkage and quality. Better reporting is needed for appropriate interpretation of the results of these trials.
|
|
| 4. |
- Gloy, Viktoria, et al.
(författare)
-
The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cancer. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 152:12, s. 2474-2484
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.
|
|
| 5. |
- Imran, Mahrukh, et al.
(författare)
-
Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 11:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist.METHODS: The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist.RESULTS: 27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report.CONCLUSION: Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data.
|
|
| 6. |
- Imran, Mahrukh, et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting Transparency and Completeness in Trials : Paper 3 - Trials conducted using administrative databases do not adequately report elements related to use of databases
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 141, s. 187-197
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: We evaluated reporting completeness and transparency in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using administrative data based on 2021 CONSORT Extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched (2011 and 2018). Eligible RCTs used administrative databases for identifying eligible participants or collecting outcomes. We evaluated reporting based on CONSORT-ROUTINE, which modified eight items from CONSORT 2010 and added five new items.RESULTS: Of 33 included trials (76% used administrative databases for outcomes, 3% for identifying participants, 21% both), most were conducted in the United States (55%), Canada (18%), or the United Kingdom (12%). Of eight items modified in the extension; six were adequately reported in a majority (>50%) of trials. For the CONSORT-ROUTINE modification portion of those items, three items were reported adequately in >50% of trials, two in <50%, two only applied to some trials, and one only had wording modifications and was not evaluated. For five new items, four that address use of routine data in trials were reported inadequately in most trials.CONCLUSION: How administrative data are used in trials is often sub-optimally reported. CONSORT-ROUTINE uptake may improve reporting.
|
|
| 7. |
- Janiaud, Perrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 325:12, s. 1185-1195
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. STUDY SELECTION The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. RESULTS A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56%[95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.
|
|
| 8. |
- Juszczak, Edmund, et al.
(författare)
-
Introducing the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using cohorts and routinely collected health data
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BMC. - 1745-6215. ; 20:Suppl. 1, s. 131-131
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being conducted using existing sources of data, such as cohorts, administrative databases, disease registries and electronic health records. RCTs conducted using existing data sources require additional information to be reported. This reporting guideline is an extension of the 2010 version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Methods: A long-list of potential items for the checklist was identified through two methods: firstly, modifications to the current CONSORT checklist were generated using existing reporting guidelines, including the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Secondly, ascoping review of RCTs conducted in the last decade using cohorts and routinely collected health data facilitated the modification and identification of other potential items. Using the long-list, a three-stage Delphi exercise was conducted to assess the importance of each item for inclusion in the final extension checklist, which was finalised at a face-to-face meeting of experts.Results: A long-list of 27 items was created and 125 experts registered for the three-round Delphi exercise (92, 77 and 62 experts participated in each round respectively). Consensus was reached on 21 out of 27 items. The results of the Delphi exercise informed a face-to-face consensus meeting in May 2019; core items to be included in the extension checklist were finalised at this meeting. Corresponding explanations of extensions and new items with examples of good reporting were developed subsequently.Conclusion: The guideline checklist can facilitate transparent reporting of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, to assist evaluations of rigour and reproducibility, enhance understanding of the methodology, and make the results more useful for clinicians, journal editors, reviewers, guideline authors, and funders.
|
|
| 9. |
- Kwakkenbos, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
CONSORT extension for the reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) : checklist with explanation and elaboration
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The BMJ. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 1756-1833 .- 0959-8146. ; 373
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Randomised controlled trials are increasingly conducted as embedded, nested, or using cohorts or routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, to assess if participants are eligible for the trial and to facilitate recruitment, to deliver an embedded intervention, to collect trial outcome data, or a combination of these purposes. This report presents the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). The extension was developed to look at the unique characteristics of trials conducted with these types of data with the goal of improving reporting quality in the long term by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these trial designs. The extension was developed with a sequential approach, including a Delphi survey, a consensus meeting, and piloting of the checklist. The checklist was informed by the CONSORT 2010 statement and two reporting guidelines for observational studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) statement. The extension includes eight items modified from the CONSORT 2010 statement and five new items. Reporting items with explanations and examples are provided, including key aspects of trials conducted using cohorts or routinely collected data that require specific reporting considerations.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kwakkenbos, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for a scoping review to support development of a CONSORT extension for randomised controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected health data
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 8:8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. The development of an extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data is being undertaken with the goal of improving reporting quality by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these designs. To develop this extension to the CONSORT statement, a scoping review will be conducted to identify potential modifications or clarifications of existing reporting guideline items, as well as additional items needed for reporting RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Methods and analysis: In separate searches, we will seek publications on methods or reporting or that describe protocols or results from RCTs using cohorts, registries, electronic health records and administrative databases. Data sources will include Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. For each of the four main types of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, separately, two investigators will independently review included publications to extract potential checklist items. A potential item will either modify an existing CONSORT 2010, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology or REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data item or will be proposed as a new item. Additionally, we will identify examples of good reporting in RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Ethics and dissemination: The proposed scoping review will help guide the development of the CONSORT extension statement for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.
|
|
