Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator. RESULTS: We identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63-130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12-40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153-381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8-21). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants. RESULTS: In the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36). CONCLUSION: Developing and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au). CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES: The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints). RESULTS: We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth. CONCLUSION: There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. METHODS: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. METHODS: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. RESULTS: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

The crucible of COVID-19: what the pandemic is teaching us about health research systems.

The global health crisis created by COVID-19 is providing valuable insights into the strengths of our health research system and, perhaps even more clearly, displaying its weaknesses. Much of what is being shown so plainly in the current context is not truly new. We are being reminded that health research systems are slow and noisy as well as that there is a desire for research to inform decision-making, that researchers are great collaborators, and that the walls we are so quick to erect between health research and health practice are unhelpful facades. It is our hope that the clarity with which these issues are being demonstrated by COVID-19 might provide the impetus to address these challenges and seize these opportunities to improve our health research system, for the benefit for communities facing COVID-19 now, and for the benefit of us all in facing the further health challenges that are sure to come.