ABSTRACT
For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs, and the deadlines for carrying out the investigation. However, the specificity of platform trials raises methodological, ethical, and regulatory issues, which have been the subject of the round table and which are presented in this article. The round table was also an opportunity to discuss the complexity of sponsorship and data management related to the multiplicity of partners, funding, and governance of these trials, and the level of acceptability of their findings by the competent authorities.
Subject(s)
Adaptive Clinical Trials as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Humans , COVID-19 , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Résumé Les essais plateformes connaissent depuis quelques années un essor important, amplifié récemment par la pandémie de coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). La mise en œuvre d’un essai plateforme s’avère particulièrement utile dans certaines pathologies, notamment lorsqu’il y a un nombre important de candidats médicaments à évaluer, une évolution rapide du traitement de référence ou dans les situations de besoin urgent d’évaluation, au cours desquelles la mutualisation des protocoles et des infrastructures permet d’optimiser le nombre de patients à inclure, les coûts et les délais de réalisation de l’investigation. Toutefois, la spécificité des essais plateformes soulève des problématiques méthodologiques, éthiques et règlementaires, qui ont fait l’objet de la table ronde et qui sont exposées dans cet article. La table ronde a également été l’occasion d’aborder la complexité de la promotion et de la gestion des données liée à la multiplicité des partenaires, le financement et la gouvernance de ces essais, et le niveau d’acceptabilité de leurs résultats par les autorités compétentes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many studies confirmed an association between COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether the risk of VTE significantly differed between COVID-19 cohorts and non-COVID-19 cohorts with similar disease severity remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the rate of VTE between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts with similar disease severity. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar) was conducted from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 to identify studies reporting VTE in COVID-19. Relative risks (RR) were estimated for the effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Seven studies (41,768 patients) evaluated VTE in COVID-19 cohorts compared to non-COVID-19 cohorts. The overall risk of VTE (RR 1.18; 95%CI 0.79-1.77; p = 0.42; I2 = 54%), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.25; 95%CI 0.77-2.03; p = 0.36; I2 = 52%) and deep venous thrombosis (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.52-1.65; p = 0.78; I2 = 0%) did not significantly differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts. However, subgroup analyses suggested an increased risk of VTE amongst CODID-19 versus non COVID-19 cohorts when only patients hospitalized within the intensive care unit (ICU) were considered (RR 3.10; 95%CI 1.54-6.23), which was not observed in cohorts of predominantly non-ICU patients (RR 0.95; 95%CI 0.81-1.11) (Pinteraction = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was no signal for a difference in VTE in COVID-19 cohorts compared to non-COVID-19 cohorts, except for the subgroup of patients hospitalized in the ICU. These results should be viewed as exploratory and further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission , Prognosis , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: A valid measurement of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incubation period is needed for case definitions and for adapting appropriate isolation measures but is challenging in an emergency context. Our objective was to systematically review recent literature reporting estimates of the distribution of the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 and describe the distribution and its variability and dispersion through a meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out on studies published from 1 January 2020 to 10 January 2021 reporting the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period. Individual mean and standard deviation were used to produce the pooled estimate. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by age, gender and study design using a meta-regression. RESULTS: In total, 99 studies were eligible for analysis in our meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of the mean incubation period across the studies was 6.38 days, 95% CI (5.79; 6.97). CONCLUSION: Calculation of the mean incubation period will help with the identification of time of exposure, however, determinants of its variations/range might be explored for potential links with the clinical outcome or pathogenic steps at the early stage of infection. A real-time meta-analysis, named the InCoVid Lyon, is proposed following this initial analysis.