Robustness of reported postacute health outcomes in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children. METHODS: A search on PubMed and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies published up to 22 January 2022 that reported on postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children (<18 years) with follow-up of ≥2 months since detection of infection or ≥1 month since recovery from acute illness. We assessed the consideration of confounding bias and causality, as well as the risk of bias. RESULTS: 21 studies including 81 896 children reported up to 97 symptoms with follow-up periods of 2.0-11.5 months. Fifteen studies had no control group. The reported proportion of children with post-COVID syndrome was between 0% and 66.5% in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=16 986) and between 2.0% and 53.3% in children without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=64 910). Only two studies made a clear causal interpretation of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the main outcome of 'post-COVID syndrome' and provided recommendations regarding prevention measures. The robustness of all 21 studies was seriously limited due to an overall critical risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children is seriously limited, at least in all the published articles we could identify. None of the studies provided evidence with reasonable certainty on whether SARS-CoV-2 infection has an impact on postacute health outcomes, let alone to what extent. Children and their families urgently need much more reliable and methodologically robust evidence to address their concerns and improve care.

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Effect of Wearing Glasses on Risk of Infection With SARS-CoV-2 in the Community: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Observational studies have reported an association between the use of eye protection and reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but, as with most infection control measures, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of wearing glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in Norway from February 2 to April 24, 2022; all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19, and did not have COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks were eligible. Intervention: Wearing glasses (eg, sunglasses) when close to others in public spaces for 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test result reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. Secondary outcomes included a positive COVID-19 test result and respiratory infection based on self-report. All analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 3717 adults (2439 women [65.6%]; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [15.1] years) were randomized. All were identified and followed up in the registries, and 3231 (86.9%) responded to the end of study questionnaire. The proportions with a reported positive COVID-19 test result in the national registry were 3.7% (68 of 1852) in the intervention group and 3.5% (65 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report were 9.6% (177 of 1852) in the intervention group and 11.5% (214 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (30.8% [571 of 1852]) than in the control group (34.1% [636 of 1865]; absolute risk difference, -3.3%; 95% CI, -6.3% to -0.3%; relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, wearing glasses in the community was not protective regarding the primary outcome of a reported positive COVID-19 test. However, results were limited by a small sample size and other issues. Glasses may be worth considering as one component in infection control, pending further studies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05217797.

Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 - the first two years in Germany and beyond.

BACKGROUND: We have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany. METHODS: We reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE). RESULTS: Two years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50%) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials; 18%), Iran (619 trials; 13%), India (566 trials; 12%), China (353 trials; 8%), and Spain (309 trials; 7%). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5% of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15% (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 – the first two years in Germany and beyond Klinische Studien zu COVID-19 – die ersten zwei Jahre in Deutschland und darüber hinaus

Background We have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany. Methods We reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE). Results Two years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50 %) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials;18 %), Iran (619 trials;13 %), India (566 trials;12 %), China (353 trials;8 %), and Spain (309 trials;7 %). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5 % of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15 % (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide. Conclusions The COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

Randomized trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed at providing a systematic overview of randomised trials assessing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to prevent COVID-19. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We included all randomised trials assessing NPIs to prevent COVID-19 in any country and setting registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform using the COVID-evidence platform (until 17 August 2021). We searched for corresponding publications in MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, the Living Overview of Evidence platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 registry as well as for results posted in registries (until 14 November 2021). Descriptive statistics using numbers and percentages were used in the narrative synthesis of the results. RESULTS: We identified 41 randomised trials. Of them, 12 were completed (29.3%) including 9 with published results. The 41 trials planned to recruit a median of 1700 participants (IQR 588-9500, range 30-35 256 399) with a median planned duration of 8 months (IQR 3-14, range 1-24). Most came from the USA (n=11, 26.8%). The trials mostly assessed protective equipment (n=11, 26.8%), COVID-19-related information and education programmes (n=9, 22.0%), access to mass events under specific safety measures (n=5, 12.2%), testing and screening strategies (n=5, 12.2%) and hygiene management (n=5, 12.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide, 41 randomised trials assessing NPIs have been initiated with published results available to inform policy decisions for only 9 of them. A long-term research agenda including behavioural, environmental, social and systems level interventions is urgently needed to guide policies and practices in the current and future public health emergencies.

Association of the COVID-19 outbreak with acute stroke care in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Switzerland, the COVID-19 incidence during the first pandemic wave was high. Our aim was to assess the association of the outbreak with acute stroke care in Switzerland in spring 2020. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis based on the Swiss Stroke Registry, which includes consecutive patients with acute cerebrovascular events admitted to Swiss Stroke Units and Stroke Centers. A linear model was fitted to the weekly admission from 2018 and 2019 and was used to quantify deviations from the expected weekly admissions from 13 March to 26 April 2020 (the "lockdown period"). Characteristics and 3-month outcome of patients admitted during the lockdown period were compared with patients admitted during the same calendar period of 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: In all, 28,310 patients admitted between 1 January 2018 and 26 April 2020 were included. Of these, 4491 (15.9%) were admitted in the periods March 13-April 26 of the years 2018-2020. During the lockdown in 2020, the weekly admissions dropped by up to 22% compared to rates expected from 2018 and 2019. During three consecutive weeks, weekly admissions fell below the 5% quantile (likelihood 0.38%). The proportion of intracerebral hemorrhage amongst all registered admissions increased from 7.1% to 9.3% (p = 0.006), and numerically less severe strokes were observed (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale from 3 to 2, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Admissions and clinical severity of acute cerebrovascular events decreased substantially during the lockdown in Switzerland. Delivery and quality of acute stroke care were maintained.

A trial platform to assess approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: first sub-protocol for a pilot trial comparing the mRNA vaccines Comirnaty® and COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Moderna®.

BACKGROUND: Late 2019, a new highly contagious coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has emerged in Wuhan, China, causing within 2 months a pandemic with the highest disease burden in elderly and people with pre-existing medical conditions. The pandemic has highlighted that new and more flexible clinical trial approaches, such as trial platforms, are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of interventions in a timely manner. The two existing Swiss cohorts of immunocompromised patients (i.e., Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) and Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS)) are an ideal foundation to set-up a trial platform in Switzerland leveraging routinely collected data. Within a newly founded trial platform, we plan to assess the efficacy of the first two mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that reached market authorization in Switzerland in the frame of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) while at the same time assessing the functionality of the trial platform. METHODS: We will conduct a multicenter randomized controlled, open-label, 2-arm sub-study pilot trial of a platform trial nested into two Swiss cohorts. Patients included in the SHCS or the STCS will be eligible for randomization to either receiving the mRNA vaccine Comirnaty® (Pfizer/BioNTech) or the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Moderna®. The primary clinical outcome will be change in pan-lg antibody response (pan-Ig anti-S1-RBD; baseline vs. 3 months after first vaccination; binary outcome, considering ≥ 0.8 units/ml as a positive antibody response). The pilot study will also enable us to assess endpoints related to trial conduct feasibility (i.e., duration of RCT set-up; time of patient recruitment; patient consent rate; proportion of missing data). Assuming vaccine reactivity of 90% in both vaccine groups, we power our trial, using a non-inferiority margin such that a 95% two-sided confidence interval excludes a difference in favor of the reference group of more than 10%. A sample size of 380 (190 in each treatment arm) is required for a statistical power of 90% and a type I error of 0.025. The study is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (National Research Program NRP 78, "COVID-19"). DISCUSSION: This study will provide crucial information about the efficacy and safety of the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in HIV patients and organ transplant recipients. Furthermore, this project has the potential to pave the way for further platform trials in Switzerland. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04805125 . Registered on March 18, 2021.

Challenges and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Trials: Should We Be Doing Clinical Trials Differently?

The COVID-19 crisis led to a flurry of clinical trials activity. The COVID-evidence database shows 2814 COVID-19 randomized trials registered as of February 16, 2021. Most were small (only 18% have a planned sample size > 500) and the rare completed ones have not provided published results promptly (only 283 trial publications as of February 2021). Small randomized trials and observational, nonrandomized analyses have not had a successful track record and have generated misleading expectations. Different large trials on the same intervention have generally been far more efficient in producing timely and consistent evidence. The rapid generation of evidence and accelerated dissemination of results have led to new challenges for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (eg, rapid, living, and scoping reviews). Pressure to regulatory agencies has also mounted with massive emergency authorizations, but some of them have had to be revoked. Pandemic circumstances have disrupted the way trials are conducted; therefore, new methods have been developed and adopted more widely to facilitate recruitment, consent, and overall trial conduct. On the basis of the COVID-19 experience and its challenges, planning of several large, efficient trials, and wider use of adaptive designs might change the future of clinical research. Pragmatism, integration in clinical care, efficient administration, promotion of collaborative structures, and enhanced integration of existing data and facilities might be several of the legacies of COVID-19 on future randomized trials.

Randomized COVID-19 vaccination rollout can offer direct real-world evidence.

Vaccines are vital to control the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but the pressure to quickly move from research to implementation in the context of a pandemic crisis raises concerns about benefits and harms, vaccine acceptance and fair access. Here we present a strategy for the COVID-19 vaccination rollout which can be rapidly embedded and would offer direct real-world evidence of vaccines on a large scale to generate otherwise unobtainable knowledge on the safety and perhaps efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Such strategic rollouts leveraging randomization can provide important evidence, for COVID-19 and in future occasions, for vaccines and beyond.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.