Changes in preterm birth and stillbirth during COVID-19 lockdowns in 26 countries.

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant mortality worldwide. Changes in PTB rates, ranging from -90% to +30%, were reported in many countries following early COVID-19 pandemic response measures ('lockdowns'). It is unclear whether this variation reflects real differences in lockdown impacts, or perhaps differences in stillbirth rates and/or study designs. Here we present interrupted time series and meta-analyses using harmonized data from 52 million births in 26 countries, 18 of which had representative population-based data, with overall PTB rates ranging from 6% to 12% and stillbirth ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 per 1,000 births. We show small reductions in PTB in the first (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98, P value <0.0001), second (0.96, 0.92-0.99, 0.03) and third (0.97, 0.94-1.00, 0.09) months of lockdown, but not in the fourth month of lockdown (0.99, 0.96-1.01, 0.34), although there were some between-country differences after the first month. For high-income countries in this study, we did not observe an association between lockdown and stillbirths in the second (1.00, 0.88-1.14, 0.98), third (0.99, 0.88-1.12, 0.89) and fourth (1.01, 0.87-1.18, 0.86) months of lockdown, although we have imprecise estimates due to stillbirths being a relatively rare event. We did, however, find evidence of increased risk of stillbirth in the first month of lockdown in high-income countries (1.14, 1.02-1.29, 0.02) and, in Brazil, we found evidence for an association between lockdown and stillbirth in the second (1.09, 1.03-1.15, 0.002), third (1.10, 1.03-1.17, 0.003) and fourth (1.12, 1.05-1.19, <0.001) months of lockdown. With an estimated 14.8 million PTB annually worldwide, the modest reductions observed during early pandemic lockdowns translate into large numbers of PTB averted globally and warrant further research into causal pathways.

Data capture and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cause for concern.

Routine health care and research have been profoundly influenced by digital-health technologies. These technologies range from primary data collection in electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative claims to web-based artificial-intelligence-driven analyses. There has been increased use of such health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven in part by the availability of these data. In some cases, this has resulted in profound and potentially long-lasting positive effects on medical research and routine health-care delivery. In other cases, high profile shortcomings have been evident, potentially attenuating the effect of-or representing a decreased appetite for-digital-health transformation. In this Series paper, we provide an overview of how facets of health technologies in routinely collected medical data (including EHRs and digital data sharing) have been used for COVID-19 research and tracking, and how these technologies might influence future pandemics and health-care research. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of digital-health research during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how learnings from COVID-19 might translate into new approaches in a post-pandemic era.

Data capture and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cause for concern

Routine health care and research have been profoundly influenced by digital-health technologies. These technologies range from primary data collection in electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative claims to web-based artificial-intelligence-driven analyses. There has been increased use of such health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven in part by the availability of these data. In some cases, this has resulted in profound and potentially long-lasting positive effects on medical research and routine health-care delivery. In other cases, high profile shortcomings have been evident, potentially attenuating the effect of—or representing a decreased appetite for—digital-health transformation. In this Series paper, we provide an overview of how facets of health technologies in routinely collected medical data (including EHRs and digital data sharing) have been used for COVID-19 research and tracking, and how these technologies might influence future pandemics and health-care research. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of digital-health research during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how learnings from COVID-19 might translate into new approaches in a post-pandemic era.

The Need for a Practical Approach to Evaluate the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines for Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The global demand for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines currently far outweighs the available global supply and manufacturing capacity. As a result, securing doses of vaccines for low- and middle-income countries has been challenging, particularly for African countries. Clinical trial investigation for COVID-19 vaccines has been rare in Africa, with the only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 vaccines having been conducted in South Africa. In addition to addressing the current inequities in the vaccine roll-out for low- and middle-income countries, there is a need to monitor the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in these regions. Although RCTs are the superior method for evaluating vaccine efficacy, the feasibility of conducting RCTs to monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness during mass vaccine campaigns will likely be low. There is still a need to evaluate the effectiveness of mass COVID-19 vaccine distribution in a practical manner. We discuss how target trial emulation, the application of trial design principles from RCTs to the analysis of observational data, can be used as a practical, cost-effective way to evaluate real-world effectiveness for COVID-19 vaccines. There are several study design considerations that need to be made in the analyses of observational data, such as uncontrolled confounders and selection biases. Target trial emulation accounts for these considerations to improve the analyses of observational data. The framework of target trial emulation provides a practical way to monitor the effectiveness of mass vaccine campaigns for COVID-19 using observational data.

Clinical Trial Data Sharing for COVID-19-Related Research.

This paper aims to provide a perspective on data sharing practices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scientific community has made several important inroads in the fight against COVID-19, and there are over 2500 clinical trials registered globally. Within the context of the rapidly changing pandemic, we are seeing a large number of trials conducted without results being made available. It is likely that a plethora of trials have stopped early, not for statistical reasons but due to lack of feasibility. Trials stopped early for feasibility are, by definition, statistically underpowered and thereby prone to inconclusive findings. Statistical power is not necessarily linear with the total sample size, and even small reductions in patient numbers or events can have a substantial impact on the research outcomes. Given the profusion of clinical trials investigating identical or similar treatments across different geographical and clinical contexts, one must also consider that the likelihood of a substantial number of false-positive and false-negative trials, emerging with the increasing overall number of trials, adds to public perceptions of uncertainty. This issue is complicated further by the evolving nature of the pandemic, wherein baseline assumptions on control group risk factors used to develop sample size calculations are far more challenging than those in the case of well-documented diseases. The standard answer to these challenges during nonpandemic settings is to assess each trial for statistical power and risk-of-bias and then pool the reported aggregated results using meta-analytic approaches. This solution simply will not suffice for COVID-19. Even with random-effects meta-analysis models, it will be difficult to adjust for the heterogeneity of different trials with aggregated reported data alone, especially given the absence of common data standards and outcome measures. To date, several groups have proposed structures and partnerships for data sharing. As COVID-19 has forced reconsideration of policies, processes, and interests, this is the time to advance scientific cooperation and shift the clinical research enterprise toward a data-sharing culture to maximize our response in the service of public health.