Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(1): 154-161, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1611483


IMPORTANCE: SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.

COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(4): 792-800, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-616206


BACKGROUND: Whole blood is optimal for resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage. Walking Blood Banks provide fresh whole blood (FWB) where conventional blood components or stored, tested whole blood are not readily available. There is an increasing interest in this as an emergency resilience measure for isolated communities and during crises including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence to inform practice. METHODS: Standard systematic review methodology was used to obtain studies that reported the delivery of FWB (PROSPERO registry CRD42019153849). Studies that only reported whole blood from conventional blood banking were excluded. For outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effects modeling because of high risk of heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies published from 2006 to 2020 reported >10,000 U of FWB for >3,000 patients (precise values not available for all studies). Evidence for studies was "low" or "very low" except for one study, which was "moderate" in quality. Fresh whole blood patients were more severely injured than non-FWB patients. Overall, survival was equivalent between FWB and non-FWB groups for eight studies that compared these (OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.65-1.55]; p = 0.61). However, the highest quality study (matched groups for physiological and injury characteristics) reported an adjusted OR of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.13-0.58) for mortality for the FWB group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Thousands of units of FWB from Walking Blood Banks have been transfused in patients following life-threatening hemorrhage. Survival is equivalent for FWB resuscitation when compared with non-FWB, even when patients were more severely injured. Evidence is scarce and of relative low quality and may underestimate potential adverse events. Whereas Walking Blood Banks may be an attractive resilience measure, caution is still advised. Walking Blood Banks should be subject to prospective evaluation to optimize care and inform policy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic/therapeutic, level 3.

Blood Banks , Blood Transfusion/methods , Resuscitation/methods , Shock, Hemorrhagic/therapy , Shock, Traumatic/therapy , Humans , Severity of Illness Index , Shock, Hemorrhagic/diagnosis , Shock, Hemorrhagic/etiology , Shock, Hemorrhagic/mortality , Shock, Traumatic/complications , Shock, Traumatic/diagnosis , Shock, Traumatic/mortality , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome