Values and preferences in COVID-19 public health guidelines: A systematic review (preprint)

Abstract Background: Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. Objective: To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences. Methods: We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences. Results: Our search yielded 129 eligible guidelines, of which 43 (33.3%) were published by national organizations, 73 (56.6%) by international organizations, and 14 (10.9%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-six (20.2%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 88.5%) and by referencing published research (24; 92.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (6; 23.1%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences. Conclusion: Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When values and preferences were considered, it was suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences in guidelines might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.

Interventions for the management of post COVID-19 condition (long COVID): Protocol for a living systematic review & network meta-analysis (preprint)

Background: Up to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia, and impaired cognitive function, termed post COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice. Objective To create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. Methods Eligible trials will randomize adults with long COVID, to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham, or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, AMED, and CENTRAL, from inception, without language restrictions. Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest, and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include fatigue, pain, post-exertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnea, quality of life, patient-reported physical function, recovery, and serious adverse events. For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The GRADE approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence. We will update our living review biannually, upon the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice. Conclusion This living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy, and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline producing organizations to inform their recommendations.

Effects of allocation concealment and blinding in trials addressing treatments for COVID-19: A methods study (preprint)

Objective: Assess the impact of allocation concealment and blinding on the results of trials addressing COVID-19 therapeutics. Data sources: World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) COVID-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to February 4th 2022) Methods: We included trials that compared drug treatments, antiviral antibodies and cellular therapies with placebo or standard care. For the five most commonly reported outcomes, if sufficient data were available, we performed random-effects meta-regression comparing the results of trials with and without allocation concealment and trials in which both healthcare providers and patients were blinded with trials in which healthcare providers and/or patients were aware of the intervention. A ratio of odds ratios (ROR) > 1 or a difference in mean difference (DMD) > 0 indicates that trials without allocation concealment or open-label trials produced larger effects than trials with allocation concealment or blinded trials. Results: As of February 4th 2022, we have identified 488 trials addressing COVID-19 drug treatments and antiviral antibodies and cellular therapies. Of these, 436 trials reported on one or more of our outcomes of interest and were included in our analyses. We found that trials without allocation concealment probably overestimate mortality (ROR 1.14 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.41]), need for mechanical ventilation (ROR 1.26 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.64]), admission to hospital (ROR 1.93 [95% CI 0.83 to 4.48]), duration of hospitalization (DMD 1.94 [95% CI 0.86 to 3.02]), and duration of mechanical ventilation (DMD 2.64 [95% CI -0.90 to 6.18]), but results were imprecise. We did not find compelling evidence that double-blind and open-label trials produce consistently different results for mortality (ROR 1.00 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.15]), need for mechanical ventilation (ROR 1.03 [95% CI 0.84 to 1.26]), and duration of hospitalization (DMD 0.47 days [95% CI -0.38 to 1.32]). We found that open-label trials may overestimate the beneficial effects of interventions for hospitalizations (ROR 1.87 [95% CI 0.95 to 3.67] and duration of mechanical ventilation (DMD 1.02 days [95% CI -1.30 to 3.35]), but results were imprecise. Conclusion: We found compelling evidence that, compared to trials with allocation concealment, trials without allocation concealment may overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We did not find evidence that trials without blinding addressing COVID-19 interventions produce consistently different results from trials with blinding. Our results suggest that consideration of blinding status may not be sufficient to judge risk of bias due to imbalances in co-interventions. Evidence users may consider evidence of differences in co-interventions between trial arms when judging the trustworthiness of open-label trials. We suggest, however, evidence users to remain skeptical of trials without allocation concealment.

The trustworthiness and impact of trial preprints for COVID-19 decision-making: A methodological study (preprint)

Purpose: To assess the trustworthiness and impact of preprint trial reports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data sources: WHO COVID-19 database and the L-OVE COVID-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to August 3rd, 2021) Design: We compare the characteristics of COVID-19 trials with and without preprints, estimate time to publication of COVID-19 preprint reports, describe discrepancies in key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports, report the number of retracted preprints and publications, and assess whether including versus excluding preprint reports affects meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence. For the effects of eight therapies on mortality and mechanical ventilation, we performed meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the first trial addressing the therapy became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total). Results: We included 356 trials, 101 of which are only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. Half of all preprints remain unpublished at six months and a third at one year. There were few important differences in key methods and results between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. We identified four retracted trials, three of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. With two exceptions (2/60; 3.3%), point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including versus excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. There were nine comparisons (9/60; 15%) for which the rating of the certainty of evidence differed when preprints were included versus excluded, for four of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher and for five of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was lower. Limitations: The generalizability of our results is limited to COVID-19. Preprints that are subsequently published in journals may be the most rigorous and may not represent all trial preprints. Conclusion: We found no compelling evidence that preprints provide less trustworthy results than published papers. We show that preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months, for a length of time that is unacceptable in a health emergency. We show that including preprints may affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. We encourage evidence users to consider data from preprints in contexts in which decisions are being made rapidly and evidence is being produced faster than can be peer-reviewed.

Higher versus lower dose corticosteroids for severe to critical COVID-19: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis (preprint)

Rationale Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe COVID-19. However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objective To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1st, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and  absolute risk difference (RD) per 1000 with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared to lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (RD 14 fewer deaths per 1000 [95% CI 26 to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty), may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (RD 11.6 fewer per 1000 [95% CI 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty) and may or may not reduce risk of nosocomial infections (16.7 fewer infections per 1000 [95% CI 5.4 to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

Tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (preprint)

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with COVID-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis Data sources: WHO COVID-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses Study selection: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to IL-6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. Results: We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a Bayesian fixed effect network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified 45 eligible trials (20,650 patients), 36 (19,350 patients) of which could be included in the network meta-analysis. 27 of 36 trials were rated at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab (20 more per 1000, 15 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty) alone may not reduce the risk of death. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (35 fewer per 1000, 52 fewer to 18 more; moderate certainty) and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, may reduce the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (43 fewer, 73 fewer to 12 more; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, both in combination with corticosteroids, may have similar effects (8 more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). Conclusion: IL-6 receptor blockers, when added to standard care that includes corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, probably reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab may have similar effectiveness.

Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis (preprint)

Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021. Study selection Randomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials: six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain. Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321). Reader note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

CLINICAL TRIALS IN COVID-19 MANAGEMENT & PREVENTION: A META-EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY (preprint)

Background: The coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic has produced a large number of clinical trial reports with unprecedented rapidity, raising concerns about methodological quality and potential for research waste. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19 infection and examine the effect of trial characteristics on whether the study reported a statistically significant effect on the primary outcome(s). Study Design: Meta-epidemiological study of Covid-19 treatment and prophylaxis RCTs. Eligibility criteria: English-language RCTs (peer-reviewed or preprint) that evaluated pharmacologic agents or blood products compared to standard care, placebo, or an active comparator among participants with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 or at risk for Covid-19. We excluded trials of vaccines or traditional herbal medicines. Information sources: We searched 25 databases in the US Centre for Disease Control Downloadable Database from January 1 to October 21, 2020. Trial appraisal and synthesis methods: We extracted trial characteristics including number of centres, funding sources (industry versus non-industry), and sample size. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool. We used descriptive statistics to summarize trial characteristics and logistic regression to evaluate the association between RoB due to the randomization process, centre status (single vs. multicentre), funding source, and sample size, and statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. Results: We included 91 RCTs (46,802 participants) evaluating Covid-19 therapeutic drugs (n = 76), blood products (n = 9) or prophylactic drugs (n = 6). Of these, 40 (44%) were single-centre, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, and 28 (30.8%) received industry funding. RoB varied across trials, with high or probably high overall RoB in 75 (82.4%) trials, most frequently due to deviations from the intended protocol (including blinding) and randomization processes. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) found a statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. RoB due randomization (odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 9.72) and single centre trials (OR 3.15, 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.97) were associated with higher likelihood of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There was high variability in RoB amongst Covid-19 trials. RoB attributed to the randomization process and single centre status were associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Researchers, funders, and knowledge users should remain cognizant of the impact of study characteristics, including RoB, on trial results when designing, conducting, and appraising Covid-19 trials. Registration number: CRD42020192095

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (preprint)

IntroductionIn an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), several drugs, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin), and lopinavir/ritonavir, have been evaluated for treatment. While much attention focuses on potential benefits of these drugs, this must be weighed against their adverse effects. MethodsWe searched 32 databases in multiple languages from 1 December 2019 to 27 October 2020. We included randomized trials if they compared any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. A related world health organization (WHO) guideline panel selected the interventions to address and identified possible adverse effects that might be important to patients. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analyzed data using a fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. ResultsWe included 16 randomized trials which enrolled 8226 patients. Compared to standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference [RD] 8 fewer per 1000, 95% confidence interval (CI): 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI: 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of serious cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI: 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI: 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI: 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI: 23 more to 110 more) compared to standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI: 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI: 100 more to 210 more) compared to standard care or placebo. ConclusionHydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Remdesivir may have no effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Patient-important Outcomes Reported in Clinical Studies of Pharmacologic Treatments for COVID-19: A Protocol of a Meta-epidemiological Study (preprint)

Background: The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIOs), limiting research applicability. We aim to describe the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 therapies will determine PIOs. Methods: We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a recent published network metanalysis (NMA). To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs. Discussion: The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19.Systematic Review registrations: Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz