Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 by Stromal Cells (REALIST-COVID Trial): A Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: We investigated safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-related ARDS. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143) randomised patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS to receive ORBCEL-C (400million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte148). MEASUREMENTS: The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at day 7 respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year, and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at day 0, 4 and 7. MAIN RESULTS: 60 participants were recruited (final analysis n=30 ORBCEL-C, n=29 placebo: 1 in placebo group withdrew consent). 6 serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C and 3 in the placebo group, RR 2.9(0.6-13.2)p=0.25. Day 7 mean[SD] oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C 98.357.2], placebo 96.667.3). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes, nor mortality at day 28, day 90, 1 or 2 years. There was no difference in prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1year nor significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome. CONCLUSION: ORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS, but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction. Clinical trial registration available at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT03042143. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Tolerating bad health research: the continuing scandal.

BACKGROUND: At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper 'The scandal of poor medical research' was that he used the word 'poor' rather than 'bad'. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things? MAIN TEXT: We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5). CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs - at the centre of our science.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described. RESULTS: COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered. CONCLUSION: We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome by stromal cell administration (REALIST): a structured study protocol for an open-label dose-escalation phase 1 trial followed by a randomised, triple-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in ARDS due to immunomodulatory and reparative properties. This trial investigates a novel CD362 enriched umbilical cord derived MSC product (REALIST ORBCEL-C), produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and ARDS due to other causes. METHODS: Phase 1 is a multicentre open-label dose-escalation pilot trial. Patients will receive a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (100 × 106 cells, 200 × 106 cells or 400 × 106 cells) in a 3 + 3 design. Phase 2 is a multicentre randomised, triple blind, allocation concealed placebo-controlled trial. Two cohorts of patients, with ARDS due to COVID-19 or ARDS due to other causes, will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to receive either a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (400 × 106 cells or maximal tolerated dose in phase 1) or placebo. Planned recruitment to each cohort is 60 patients. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is oxygenation index at day 7. The trial will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) statement. DISCUSSION: The development and manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product to Good Manufacturing Practice standards within NHS infrastructure are discussed, including challenges encountered during the early stages of trial set up. The rationale to include a separate cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 in phase 2 of the trial is outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143. Registered on 3 February 2017. EudraCT Number 2017-000584-33.

A study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of an intervention to increase activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in people with severe mental illness: Walking fOR Health (WORtH) Study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI) are less physically active and more sedentary than healthy controls, contributing to poorer physical health outcomes in this population. There is a need to understand the feasibility and acceptability, and explore the effective components, of health behaviour change interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour in this population in rural and semi-rural settings. METHODS: This 13-week randomised controlled feasibility trial compares the Walking fOR Health (WORtH) multi-component behaviour change intervention, which includes education, goal-setting and self-monitoring, with a one-off education session. It aims to recruit 60 inactive adults with SMI via three community mental health teams in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Primary outcomes are related to feasibility and acceptability, including recruitment, retention and adherence rates, adverse events and qualitative feedback from participants and clinicians. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported and accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour, anthropometry measures, physical function and mental wellbeing. A mixed-methods process evaluation will be undertaken. This study protocol outlines changes to the study in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: This study will address the challenges and implications of remote delivery of the WORtH intervention due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform the design of a future definitive randomised controlled trial if it is shown to be feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04134871 ) on 22 October 2019.

Artificial Intelligence for COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Background: Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected more than 200 countries and lead to enormous losses. This study systematically reviews the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in COVID-19, especially for diagnosis, estimation of epidemic trends, prognosis, and exploration of effective and safe drugs and vaccines; and discusses the potential limitations. Methods: We report this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to 19 September 2020 for published studies of AI applications in COVID-19. We used PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) to assess the quality of literature related to the diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19. We registered the protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020211555). Results: We included 78 studies: 46 articles discussed AI-assisted diagnosis for COVID-19 with total accuracy of 70.00 to 99.92%, sensitivity of 73.00 to 100.00%, specificity of 25 to 100.00%, and area under the curve of 0.732 to 1.000. Fourteen articles evaluated prognosis based on clinical characteristics at hospital admission, such as clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics, reaching accuracy of 74.4 to 95.20%, sensitivity of 72.8 to 98.00%, specificity of 55 to 96.87% and AUC of 0.66 to 0.997 in predicting critical COVID-19. Nine articles used AI models to predict the epidemic of the COVID-19, such as epidemic peak, infection rate, number of infected cases, transmission laws, and development trend. Eight articles used AI to explore potential effective drugs, primarily through drug repurposing and drug development. Finally, 1 article predicted vaccine targets that have the potential to develop COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: In this review, we have shown that AI achieved high performance in diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, epidemic prediction and drug discovery for COVID-19. AI has the potential to enhance significantly existing medical and healthcare system efficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome by stromal cell administration (REALIST) trial: A phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to immunomodulatory, reparative, and antimicrobial actions. ORBCEL-C is a population of CD362 enriched umbilical cord-derived MSCs. The REALIST phase 1 trial investigated the safety and feasibility of ORBCEL-C in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. METHODS: REALIST phase 1 was an open label, dose escalation trial in which cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS received increasing doses (100, 200 or 400 × 106 cells) of a single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C in a 3 + 3 design. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as a serious adverse reaction within seven days. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03042143. FINDINGS: Nine patients were recruited between the 7th January 2019 and 14th January 2020. Study drug administration was well tolerated and no dose limiting toxicity was reported in any of the three cohorts. Eight adverse events were reported for four patients. Pyrexia within 24 h of study drug administration was reported in two patients as pre-specified adverse events. A further two adverse events (non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and deranged liver enzymes), were reported as adverse reactions. Four serious adverse events were reported (colonic perforation, gastric perforation, bradycardia and myocarditis) but none were deemed related to administration of ORBCEL-C. At day 28 no patients had died in cohort one (100 × 106), three patients had died in cohort two (200 × 106) and one patient had died in cohort three (400 × 106). Overall day 28 mortality was 44% (n = 4/9). INTERPRETATION: A single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C was well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. No dose limiting toxicity was reported up to 400 × 106 cells.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors. RESULTS: Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Patient prioritisation methods to shorten waiting times for elective surgery: A systematic review of how to improve access to surgery.

BACKGROUND: Concern about long waiting times for elective surgeries is not a recent phenomenon, but it has been heightened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated measures. One way to alleviate the problem might be to use prioritisation methods for patients on the waiting list and a wide range of research is available on such methods. However, significant variations and inconsistencies have been reported in prioritisation protocols from various specialties, institutions, and health systems. To bridge the evidence gap in existing literature, this comprehensive systematic review will synthesise global evidence on policy strategies with a unique insight to patient prioritisation methods to reduce waiting times for elective surgeries. This will provide evidence that might help with the tremendous burden of surgical disease that is now apparent in many countries because of operations that were delayed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform policy for sustainable healthcare management systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with our most recent searches in January 2020. Articles published after 2013 on major elective surgery lists of adult patients were eligible, but cancer and cancer-related surgeries were excluded. Both randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible and the quality of studies was assessed with ROBINS-I and CASP tools. We registered the review in PROSPERO (CRD42019158455) and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The electronic search in five bibliographic databases yielded 7543 records (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane) and 17 eligible articles were identified in the screening. There were four quasi-experimental studies, 11 observational studies and two systematic reviews. These demonstrated moderate to low risk of bias in their research methods. Three studies tested generic approaches using common prioritisation systems for all elective surgeries in common. The other studies assessed specific prioritisation approaches for re-ordering the waiting list for a particular surgical specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit prioritisation tools with a standardised scoring system based on clear evidence-based criteria are likely to reduce waiting times and improve equitable access to health care. Multiple attributes need to be considered in defining a fair prioritisation system to overcome limitations with local variations and discriminations. Collating evidence from a diverse body of research provides a single framework to improve the quality and efficiency of elective surgical care provision in a variety of health settings. Universal prioritisation tools with vertical and horizontal equity would help with re-ordering patients on waiting lists for elective surgery and reduce waiting times.

The effectiveness of different patient referral systems to shorten waiting times for elective surgeries: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Long waiting times for elective surgery are common to many publicly funded health systems. Inefficiencies in referral systems in high-income countries are more pronounced than lower and middle-income countries. Primary care practitioners play a major role in determining which patients are referred to surgeon and might represent an opportunity to improve this situation. With conventional methods of referrals, surgery clinics are often overcrowded with non-surgical referrals and surgical patients experience longer waiting times as a consequence. Improving the quality of referral communications should lead to more timely access and better cost-effectiveness for elective surgical care. This review summarises the research evidence for effective interventions within the scope of primary-care referral methods in the surgical care pathway that might shorten waiting time for elective surgeries. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases in December-2019 to January-2020, for articles published after 2013. Eligibility criteria included major elective surgery lists of adult patients, excluding cancer related surgeries. Both randomised and non-randomised controlled studies were eligible. The quality of evidence was assessed using ROBINS-I, AMSTAR 2 and CASP, as appropriate to the study method used. The review presentation was limited to a narrative synthesis because of heterogeneity. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42019158455. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 7543 records. Finally, nine articles were considered as eligible after deduplication and full article screening. The eligible research varied widely in design, scope, reported outcomes and overall quality, with one randomised trial, two quasi-experimental studies, two longitudinal follow up studies, three systematic reviews and one observational study. All the six original articles were based on referral methods in high-income countries. The included research showed that patient triage and prioritisation at the referral stage improved timely access and increased the number of consultations of surgical patients in clinics. CONCLUSIONS: The available studies included a variety of interventions and were of medium to high quality researches. Managing patient referrals with proper triaging and prioritisation using structured referral formats is likely to be effective in health systems to shorten the waiting times for elective surgeries, specifically in high-income countries.

Clinical practice guidelines and experts' consensuses of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization declared on March 11, 2020, that the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) has escalated from epidemic into pandemic. As the initial outbreak area, China has taken multiple active measures to deal with the epidemic. Updated versions of diagnosis and treatment guideline for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients have been issued, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine has been recommended as a treatment. The objective of this study will be to summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines about the use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19 patients. We will also evaluate and report on the methodological and reporting quality of these guidelines. METHODS: In this systematic review, we will search for guidelines, expert consensuses, and policy documents published since December 2019 in electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese databases) and on websites of governments or organizations (e.g., The National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], Guidelines International Network [GIN], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN], and WHO). Eligible documents will be independently selected, and relevant data will be independently extracted by two reviewers. We will also independently evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement, respectively. Any discrepancies will be discussed and resolved through discussion among the reviewers. We will use the extracted information to summarize their recommendations for traditional Chinese herbal formulae and Chinese patent medicine for COVID-19 patients and to summarize the strength and quality of these recommendations with reference to the results of AGREE II and RIGHT tools. DISCUSSION: This review will summarize the recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines and provide insight into the implementation strategies for traditional Chinese herbal medicine in COVID-19 patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179205.

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these. METHODS: A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data. RESULTS: Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.

Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome by Stromal Cell Administration in COVID-19 (REALIST-COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study is to assess the safety of a single intravenous infusion of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Secondary objectives are to determine the effects of MSCs on important clinical outcomes, as described below. TRIAL DESIGN: REALIST COVID 19 is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple blinded trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be conducted in Intensive Care Units in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS as defined by the Berlin definition, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical diagnosis or PCR test will be eligible. Patients will be excluded for the following reasons: more than 72 hours from the onset of ARDS; age < 16 years; patient known to be pregnant; major trauma in previous 5 days; presence of any active malignancy (other than non-melanoma skin cancer); WHO Class III or IV pulmonary hypertension; venous thromboembolism currently receiving anti-coagulation or within the past 3 months; patient receiving extracorporeal life support; severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh > 12); Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order in place; treatment withdrawal imminent within 24 hours; prisoners; declined consent; non-English speaking patients or those who do not adequately understand verbal or written information unless an interpreter is available; previously enrolled in the REALIST trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Allogeneic donor CD362 enriched human umbilical cord derived mesenchymal stromal cells (REALIST ORBCEL-C) supplied as sterile, single-use cryopreserved cell suspension of a fixed dose of 400 x106 cells in 40ml volume, to be diluted in Plasma-Lyte 148 to a total volume of 200mls for administration. Comparator (placebo): Plasma-Lyte 148 Solution for Infusion (200mls). The cellular product (REALIST ORBCEL-C) was developed and patented by Orbsen Therapeutics. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is Oxygenation Index (OI) at day 7. Secondary outcomes include: OI at days 4 and 14; respiratory compliance, driving pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (PF ratio) at days 4, 7 and 14; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at days 4, 7 and 14; extubation and reintubation; ventilation free days at day 28; duration of mechanical ventilation; length of ICU and hospital stay; 28-day and 90-day mortality. RANDOMISATION: After obtaining informed consent, patients will be randomised via a centralised automated 24-hour telephone or web-based randomisation system (CHaRT, Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen). Randomisation will be stratified by recruitment centre and by vasopressor use and patients will be allocated to REALIST ORBCEL-C or placebo control in a 1:1 ratio. BLINDING (MASKING): The investigator, treating physician, other members of the site research team and participants will be blinded. The cell therapy facility and clinical trials pharmacist will be unblinded to facilitate intervention and placebo preparation. The unblinded individuals will keep the treatment information confidential. The infusion bag will be masked at the time of preparation and will be administered via a masked infusion set. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sample size of 60 patients with 30 patients randomised to the intervention and 30 to the control group. If possible, recruitment will continue beyond 60 patients to provide more accurate and definitive trial results. The total number of patients recruited will depend on the pandemic and be guided by the data monitoring and ethics committee (DMEC). TRIAL STATUS: REALIST Phase 1 completed in January 2020 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was an open label dose escalation study of REALIST ORBCEL-C in patients with ARDS. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged as REALIST Phase 2 was planned to commence and the investigator team decided to repurpose the Phase 2 trial as a COVID-19 specific trial. This decision was discussed and approved by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and DMEC. Submissions were made to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and MHRA to amend the protocol to a COVID-19 specific patient population and the protocol amendment was accepted by the REC on 27th March 2020 and MHRA on 30th March 2020 respectively. Other protocol changes in this amendment included an increase in the time of onset of ARDS from 48 to 72 hours, inclusion of clinical outcomes as secondary outcomes, the provision of an option for telephone consent, an indicative sample size and provision to continue recruitment beyond this indicative sample size. The current protocol in use is version 4.0 23.03.2020 (Additional file 1). Urgent Public Health status was awarded by the NIHR on 2 April 2020 and the trial opened to recruitment and recruited the first participant the same day. At the time of publication the trial was open to recruitment at 5 sites across the UK (Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, King's College London, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital London, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) and 12 patients have been recruited across these sites. Additional sites are planned to open and appropriate approvals for these are being obtained. It is estimated recruitment will continue for 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143 (Registered 3 Feb 2017). EudraCT 2017-000585-33 (Registered 28 Nov 2017). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0 23.03.2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Traditional Chinese herbal medicine for treating novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A new type of coronavirus, novel coronavirus (COVID-19), is causing an increasing number of cases of pneumonia and was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization on 30 January 2020. The virus first appeared in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019, and traditional Chinese herbal medicine is being used for its treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess studies of the effects of traditional Chinese herbal medicine in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We will search electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang database using keywords related to COVID-19 and traditional Chinese herbal medicine. Reference lists of relevant trials and reviews will be searched. We will manually search gray literature, such as conference proceedings and academic degree dissertations, and trial registries. Two independent reviewers will screen studies (XL and DZ), extract data (YL and LG), and evaluate risk of bias (YL and DZ). Data analysis will be conducted using the Review Manager software (version 5.3.5) and R software (version 3.6.1). Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard chi-square test with a significance level of P < 0.10. Biases associated with study size (e.g., publication bias) will be investigated using funnel plots, Egger's test and Begg's test, and Trim and Fill analysis. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a high-quality synthesis of the effects of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19. The use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for treatment or prevention of these novel viral infections affecting the pneumonia will be investigated. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020168004.