Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Implementing expanded COVID-19 testing in Massachusetts community health centers through community partnerships: Protocol for an interrupted time series and stepped wedge study design.

BACKGROUND: Community Health Centers (CHCs) are a critical source of care for low-income and non-privately insured populations. During the pandemic, CHCs have leveraged their infrastructure and role as a trusted source of care to engage the communities they serve in COVID-19 testing. METHODS: To directly address the impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations in Massachusetts, we designed a study of community-engaged COVID-19 testing expansion: (1) leveraging existing partnerships to accelerate COVID-19 testing and rapidly disseminate effective implementation strategies; (2) incorporating efforts to address key barriers to testing participation in communities at increased risk for COVID-19; (3) further developing partnerships between communities and CHCs to address testing access and disparities; (4) grounding the study in the development of a shared ethical framework for advancing equity in situations of scarcity; and (5) developing mechanisms for communication and science translation to support community outreach. We use a controlled interrupted time series design, comparing number of COVID-19 tests overall and among people identified as members of high-risk groups served by intervention CHCs compared with six matched control CHCs in Massachusetts, followed by a stepped wedge design to pilot test strategies for tailored outreach by CHCs. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we describe a community-partnered strategy to accelerate COVID-19 testing in historically marginalized populations that provides ongoing resources to CHCs for addressing testing needs in their communities. The study aligns with principles of community-engaged research including shared leadership, adequate resources for community partners, and the flexibility to respond to changing needs over time.

Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.

Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery. As, we argue, none of the three typical approaches are ethically ideal for allocating trial opportunities in the pandemic context, many hospitals have instead implemented hybrid solutions. We offer practical guidance to support those continuing to face these challenges, and we analyze options for the future.

Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: A number of prior studies have demonstrated that research participants with limited English proficiency in the United States are routinely excluded from clinical trial participation. Systematic exclusion through study eligibility criteria that require trial participants to be able to speak, read, and/or understand English affects access to clinical trials and scientific generalizability. We sought to establish the frequency with which English language proficiency is required and, conversely, when non-English languages are affirmatively accommodated in US interventional clinical trials for adult populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the advanced search function on ClinicalTrials.gov specifying interventional studies for adults with at least 1 site in the US. In addition, we used these search criteria to find studies with an available posted protocol. A computer program was written to search for evidence of English or Spanish language requirements, or the posted protocol, when available, was manually read for these language requirements. Of the 14,367 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2019 and 1 December 2020 that met baseline search criteria, 18.98% (95% CI 18.34%-19.62%; n = 2,727) required the ability to read, speak, and/or understand English, and 2.71% (95% CI 2.45%-2.98%; n = 390) specifically mentioned accommodation of translation to another language. The remaining trials in this analysis and the following sub-analyses did not mention English language requirements or accommodation of languages other than English. Of 2,585 federally funded clinical trials, 28.86% (95% CI 27.11%-30.61%; n = 746) required English language proficiency and 4.68% (95% CI 3.87%-5.50%; n = 121) specified accommodation of other languages; of the 5,286 industry-funded trials, 5.30% (95% CI 4.69%-5.90%; n = 280) required English and 0.49% (95% CI 0.30%-0.69%; n = 26) accommodated other languages. Trials related to infectious disease were less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (10.07% versus 18.98%; relative risk [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI 0.44-0.64; p < 0.001). Trials related to COVID-19 were also less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (8.18% versus 18.98%; RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.33-0.56; p < 0.001). Trials with a posted protocol (n = 366) were more likely than all registered clinical trials to specify an English requirement (36.89% versus 18.98%; RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.69-2.23; p < 0.001). A separate analysis of studies with posted protocols in 4 therapeutic areas (depression, diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer) demonstrated that clinical trials related to depression were the most likely to require English (52.24%; 95% CI 40.28%-64.20%). One limitation of this study is that the computer program only searched for the terms "English" and "Spanish" and may have missed evidence of other language accommodations. Another limitation is that we did not differentiate between requirements to read English, speak English, understand English, and be a native English speaker; we grouped these requirements together in the category of English language requirements. CONCLUSIONS: A meaningful percentage of US interventional clinical trials for adults exclude individuals who cannot read, speak, and/or understand English, or are not native English speakers. To advance more inclusive and generalizable research, funders, sponsors, institutions, investigators, institutional review boards, and others should prioritize translating study materials and eliminate language requirements unless justified either scientifically or ethically.

Navigating the ethics of remote research data collection.

COVID-19 has accelerated broad trends already in place toward remote research data collection and monitoring. This move implicates novel ethical and regulatory challenges which have not yet received due attention. Existing work is preliminary and does not seek to identify or grapple with the issues in a rigorous and sophisticated way. Here, we provide a framework for identifying and addressing challenges that we believe can help the research community realize the benefits of remote technologies while preserving ethical ideals and public trust. We organize issues into several distinct categories and provide points to consider in a table that can help facilitate ethical design and review of research studies using remote health instruments.

A Descriptive-Multivariate Analysis of Community Knowledge, Confidence, and Trust in COVID-19 Clinical Trials among Healthcare Workers in Uganda.

Background-misinformation and mistrust often undermines community vaccine uptake, yet information in rural communities, especially of developing countries, is scarce. This study aimed to identify major challenges associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine clinical trials among healthcare workers and staff in Uganda. Methods-a rapid exploratory survey was conducted over 5 weeks among 260 respondents (66% male) from healthcare centers across the country using an online questionnaire. Twenty-seven questions assessed knowledge, confidence, and trust scores on COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials from participants in 46 districts in Uganda. Results-we found low levels of knowledge (i.e., confusing COVID-19 with Ebola) with males being more informed than females (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.7-3.0), and mistrust associated with policy decisions to promote herbal treatments in Uganda and the rushed international clinical trials, highlighting challenges for the upcoming Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinations. Knowledge, confidence and trust scores were higher among the least educated (certificate vs. bachelor degree holders). We also found a high level of skepticism and possible community resistance to DNA recombinant vaccines, such as the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Preference for herbal treatments (38/260; 14.6%, 95% CI: 10.7-19.3) currently being promoted by the Ugandan government raises major policy concerns. High fear and mistrust for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials was more common among wealthier participants and more affluent regions of the country. Conclusion-our study found that knowledge, confidence, and trust in COVID-19 vaccines was low among healthcare workers in Uganda, especially those with higher wealth and educational status. There is a need to increase transparency and inclusive participation to address these issues before new trials of COVID-19 vaccines are initiated.

Dental Care in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review.

Given the dynamic relationship between oral and general health, dental care must not be neglected even during a public health emergency. Nevertheless, the fear of contracting the infection appears to have caused instances of dental treatment avoidance. In these times of uncertainty, regulatory and public health organizations have made numerous and sometimes controversial recommendations to practitioners and to the public about how to secure their oral health care needs. Dentists, as advocates of oral health, should actively maintain their practices while considering local epidemiological reports and recommendations regarding prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Providing appropriate safety measures, accurate triage and prioritization of patients, notice to susceptible communities, remote health care delivery when appropriate, and epidemiological reports of COVID-19 (whenever possible) are all critical considerations for dental practitioners.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.