Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e224-e233, 2022 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2017763

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. METHODS: Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. RESULTS: The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , SARS-CoV-2 , Cost of Illness , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pharmaceutical Preparations
2.
Clin Trials ; 19(4): 432-441, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846746

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Factorial designs and multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform designs have many advantages, but the practical advantages and disadvantages of combining the two designs have not been explored. METHODS: We propose practical methods for a combined design within the platform trial paradigm where some interventions are not expected to interact and could be given together. RESULTS: We describe the combined design and suggest diagrams that can be used to represent it. Many properties are common both to standard factorial designs, including the need to consider interactions between interventions and the impact of intervention efficacy on power of other comparisons, and to standard multi-arm multi-stage designs, including the need to pre-specify procedures for starting and stopping intervention comparisons. We also identify some specific features of the factorial-MAMS design: timing of interim and final analyses should be determined by calendar time or total observed events; some non-factorial modifications may be useful; eligibility criteria should be broad enough to include any patient eligible for any part of the randomisation; stratified randomisation may conveniently be performed sequentially; and analysis requires special care to use only concurrent controls. CONCLUSION: A combined factorial-MAMS design can combine the efficiencies of factorial trials and multi-arm multi-stage platform trials. It allows us to address multiple research questions under one protocol and to test multiple new treatment options, which is particularly important when facing a new emergent infection such as COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Research Design , Humans , Random Allocation
3.
Microorganisms ; 9(4)2021 Apr 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238917

ABSTRACT

Children affected by tuberculous meningitis (TBM), as well as their families, have needs that lie at the intersections between the tuberculosis and meningitis clinical, research, and policy spheres. There is therefore a substantial risk that these needs are not fully met by either programme. In this narrative review article, we use the World Health Organization (WHO) "Defeating Meningitis by 2030: global roadmap" as a starting point to consider key goals and activities to specifically defeat TBM in children. We apply the five pillars outlined in the roadmap to describe how this approach can be adapted to serve children affected by TBM. The pillars are (i) prevention; (ii) diagnosis and treatment; (iii) surveillance; (iv) support and care for people affected by meningitis; and (v) advocacy and engagement. We conclude by calling for greater integration between meningitis and TB programmes at WHO and at national levels.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL