Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%. CONCLUSION: We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis. RESULTS: Model outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5-7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, -0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4-2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 - 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4-5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely. CONCLUSION: The decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

Personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers and their perceptions about mitigating strategies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey consisting of (1) a survey of the personal and professional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential mitigation strategies, and (2) two validated psychological instruments (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] and Impact of Events Scale Revised [IES-R]). Regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of workplace stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hospital workers employed at 4 teaching and 8 non-teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Among 1875 respondents (84% female, 49% frontline workers), 72% feared falling ill, 64% felt their job placed them at great risk of COVID-19 exposure, and 48% felt little control over the risk of infection. Respondents perceived that others avoided them (61%), reported increased workplace stress (80%), workload (66%) and responsibilities (59%), and 44% considered leaving their job. The psychological questionnaires revealed that 25% had at least some psychological distress on the K10, 50% had IES-R scores suggesting clinical concern for post-traumatic stress, and 38% fulfilled criteria for at least one psychological diagnosis. Female gender and feeling at increased risk due to PPE predicted all adverse psychological outcomes. Respondents favoured clear hospital communication (59%), knowing their voice is heard (55%), expressions of appreciation from leadership (55%), having COVID-19 protocols (52%), and food and beverages provided by the hospital (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital work during the COVID-19 pandemic has had important personal, professional, and psychological impacts. Respondents identified opportunities to better address information, training, and support needs.