Drug Discovery and Big Data: From Research to the Community

Technology and artificial intelligence, alongside the COVID-19 pandemic vastly increasing technology use in health care, have precipitated an escalation of big data. Although real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have contributed to determining outcomes outside the scope of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), RWD and RWE are underutilized in demonstrating drug effectiveness. Utilizing RWD may enhance the ability of regulatory agencies to approve drugs, provide drug effectiveness insight to payers, and improve personalized medicine. Additionally, RWD and RWE may assist in overcoming the limitations of RCT data such as treatment adherence and underrepresented patient subgroups and may support and expedite drug repositioning. Even though the limitations of using RWE and RWD include fragmented data context, poor data quality, and information governance, healthcare analytics hubs such as the European Health Data Space are designed to foster synergy among private and public healthcare players and may assist in overcoming these potential limitations. Such healthcare analytics hubs may enhance the utilization of RWE and/or RWD, which could ultimately result in better patient outcomes. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

CCS Explorer: Relevance Prediction, Extractive Summarization, and Named Entity Recognition from Clinical Cohort Studies

Clinical Cohort Studies (CCS), such as randomized clinical trials, are a great source of documented clinical research. Ideally, a clinical expert inspects these articles for exploratory analysis ranging from drug discovery for evaluating the efficacy of existing drugs in tackling emerging diseases to the first test of newly developed drugs. However, more than 100 articles are published daily on a single prevalent disease like COVID-19 in PubMed. As a result, it can take days for a physician to find articles and extract relevant information. Can we develop a system to sift through these articles faster and document the crucial takeaways from each of these articles? In this work, we propose CCS Explorer, an end-to-end system for relevance prediction of sentences, extractive summarization, and patient, outcome, and intervention entity detection from CCS. CCS Explorer is packaged in a web-based graphical user interface where the user can provide any disease name. CCS Explorer then extracts and aggregates all relevant information from articles on PubMed based on the results of an automatically generated query produced on the back-end. For each task, CCS Explorer fine-tunes pre-trained language representation models based on transformers with additional layers. The models are evaluated using two publicly available datasets. CCS Explorer obtains a recall of 80.2%, AUC-ROC of 0.843, and an accuracy of 88.3% on sentence relevance prediction using BioBERT and achieves an average Micro F1-Score of 77.8% on Patient, Intervention, Outcome detection (PIO) using PubMedBERT. Thus, CCS Explorer can reliably extract relevant information to summarize articles, saving time by ~660×. © 2022 IEEE.

Navigating COVID-19 and related challenges to completing clinical trials: Lessons from the PATRIOT and STEP-UP randomized prevention trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: High follow-up is critical in randomized clinical trials. We developed novel approaches to modify in-person visits and complete follow-up during COVID-19. Since these strategies are broadly applicable to circumstances wherein follow-up is difficult, they may help in contingency planning. The objective of this article is to develop and evaluate new approaches to replace detailed, in-person study visits for two trials focused on preventing diabetic foot complications. METHODS: A quasi-experimental pre-post design compared approaches for follow-up during COVID-19 to approaches pre-COVID-19. Study subjects were outpatients at two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Following a research "hold," research resumed in February 2021 for Self-monitoring, Thermometry and Educating Patients for Ulcer Prevention (STEP UP) (n = 241), which focused on preventing recurrent foot ulcers, and in April 2021 for Preventing Amputation by Tailored Risk-based Intervention to Optimize Therapy (PATRIOT) (n = 406), which focused on preventing pre-ulcerative and ulcerative lesions. To complete data collection, we shortened visits, focused on primary and secondary outcomes, and conducted virtual visits when appropriate. For STEP UP, we created a 20-min assessment process that could be administered by phone. Since PATRIOT required plantar photographs to assess foot lesions, we conducted short face-to-face visits. We explored differences and assessed proportion completing visit, visit completion/100 person-months and compared COVID-19 to pre- COVID-19 using unadjusted risk ratios, incidence rate ratios, all with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Finally, we report time-to-visit curves. RESULTS: In both studies, participants whose follow-up concluded pre- COVID-19 seemed older than those whose follow-up concluded during COVID-19 (PATRIOT: 68.0 (67.2, 68.9) versus 65.2 years (61.9, 68.5); STEP UP: 67.5 (66.2, 68.9) versus 65.3 (63.3, 67.3)). For STEP UP, we completed 91 visits pre- COVID-19 (37.8% (31.6%, 44.2%)) and 63 visits during COVID-19 (78.8% (68.2%, 87.1%)). This was over 1309 person-months pre-COVID-19, and over 208.8 person-months during COVID-19; the visit completion rate/100 person-months were: pre-COVID-19 7.0 (5.6, 8.5), COVID-19 30.2 (23.2, 38.6); risk ratio: 2.1 (1.7, 2.5); and incidence rate ratio 4.3 (3.1, 5.9). Similarly, for PATRIOT, we completed 316 visits pre-COVID-19 (77.8% (73.5%, 81.8%)) and 27 assessments during COVID-19 (84.4% (67.2%, 94.7%)). This was over 1192.7 person-months pre-COVID-19 and 39.3 person-months during COVID-19. The visit completion rate/100 person-months in PATRIOT were: pre-COVID-19 2.7 (2.4, 3.0), COVID-19 6.9 (4.5, 10); risk ratio 1.1 (0.9, 1.3); incidence rate ratio 2.6 (1.8, 3.8). For both studies, the follow-up curves began separating at < 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: We achieved higher completion rates during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 by modifying visits and focusing on primary and secondary outcomes. These strategies prevent excessive missing data, support more valid conclusions, and improve efficiency. They may provide important alternative strategies to achieving higher follow-up in randomized clinical trials.

Research strategies in treatment of hypertension: value of retrospective real-life data.

This review will discuss the limitations of data collected by RCTs in relation to their applicability to daily life clinical management. It will then argue that these limitations are only partially overcome by modifications of RCT design and conduction (e.g. 'pragmatic trials') while being substantially attenuated by real-life-derived research, which can fill many gaps left by trial-collected evidence and have thus an important complementary value. The focus will be on the real-life research approach based on the retrospective analysis of the now widely available healthcare utilization databases (formerly known as administrative databases), which will be discussed in detail for their multiple advantages as well as challenges. Emphasis will be given to the potential of these databases to provide low-cost information over long periods on many different healthcare issues, drug therapies in particular, from the general population to clinically important subgroups, including (i) prognostic aspects of treatments implemented at the medical practice level via hospitalization and fatality data and (ii) medical practice-related phenomena such as low treatment adherence and therapeutic inertia (unsatisfactorily evaluated by RCTs). It will also be mentioned that thanks to the current availability of these data in electronic format, results can be obtained quickly, helping timely decisions under emergencies. The potential shortcomings of this approach (confounding by indication, misclassification, and selection bias) will also be discussed along with their possible minimization by suitable analytic means. Finally, examples of the contributions of studies on hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors will be offered based on retrospective healthcare utilization databases that have provided information on real-life cardiovascular treatments unavailable via RCTs.

The Effects of the Ukrainian Conflict on Oncological Care: The Latest State of the Art.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected all aspects of the patient's pathway to cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Our main objective was to evaluate the status of cancer trials in Ukraine as of September 2022. METHODS: Initially, we examined with a narrative review the state of breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer population-based screening. Subsequently, we assessed each trial status for the years 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Estimates of participation in breast and cervical cancer screening are different from region to region. Moreover, regarding cervical cancer screening, extremely different participation estimates were reported: 73% in 2003 vs. <10% 2020. Our data show that from 2014 to 2020, despite the pandemic, cancer trials in Ukraine significantly increased from 27 to 44. In 2021 no trials were completed; in fact, we observed that out of 41 trials, 8 were active not recruiting, 33 were recruiting, and 0 were completed or terminated. In 2022 in Ukraine, for oncological pathologies, only 3 trials were registered, while in 2021, 41 trials were registered. The suspension of trials regarded above all concern hematological tissue (66.7%) and the genitourinary tract (60%). CONCLUSIONS: Our work has highlighted how the areas most affected by the conflict present criticalities in oncological care.

The nocebo phenomenon in the COVID-19 pandemic: a nocebodemic effect.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic had remarkable effects on psychological distress. The main stressors were prolonged quarantine and social isolation, fear of infection and death, stigmatization, infodemic, financial difficulties, and job loss. These negative stressors, which affect mental and physical health, make people more vulnerable to nocebo-related risk behaviors. We aimed to summarize data on nocebo behaviors, such as the negative psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of how people perceive and interpret medical services and treatments. AREAS COVERED: Limited data were found from randomized controlled trials with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and from surveys on healthy people, healthcare workers, and patients with chronic pain disorders. EXPERT OPINION: Studies have shown nocebo effects among participants in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines trials, among patients with chronic pain, and among healthcare workers. These effects were widely amplified during the pandemic era, prefiguring a 'nocebodemic effect' to describe the massive negative interpretation of health services and medical treatments. Greater awareness of these findings could reduce the impact of the 'nocebodemic effect' and increase public trust in science.

Effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation therapy on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review with an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial. METHODS: We systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78-1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98-1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19-2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56-3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39-0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66-1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39-0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34-1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results. CONCLUSIONS: In our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).

Antiviral potential of garlic (Allium sativum) and its organosulfur compounds: A systematic update of pre-clinical and clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is a common herb consumed worldwide as functional food and traditional remedy for the prevention of infectious diseases since ancient time. Garlic and its active organosulfur compounds (OSCs) have been reported to alleviate a number of viral infections in pre-clinical and clinical investigations. However, so far no systematic review on its antiviral effects and the underlying molecular mechanisms exists. SCOPE AND APPROACH: The aim of this review is to systematically summarize pre-clinical and clinical investigations on antiviral effects of garlic and its OSCs as well as to further analyse recent findings on the mechanisms that underpin these antiviral actions. PubMed, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and Science Direct databases were searched and articles up to June 2020 were included in this review. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Pre-clinical data demonstrated that garlic and its OSCs have potential antiviral activity against different human, animal and plant pathogenic viruses through blocking viral entry into host cells, inhibiting viral RNA polymerase, reverse transcriptase, DNA synthesis and immediate-early gene 1(IEG1) transcription, as well as through downregulating the extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK)/mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. The alleviation of viral infection was also shown to link with immunomodulatory effects of garlic and its OSCs. Clinical studies further demonstrated a prophylactic effect of garlic in the prevention of widespread viral infections in humans through enhancing the immune response. This review highlights that garlic possesses significant antiviral activity and can be used prophylactically in the prevention of viral infections.

Anti-CD20 therapies for multiple sclerosis: current status and future perspectives.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory, demyelinating and neurodegenerative disease affecting the central nervous system (CNS), often characterized by the accumulation of irreversible clinical disability over time. During last years, there has been a dramatic evolution in several key concepts of immune pathophysiology of MS and in the treatment of this disease. The demonstration of the strong efficacy and good safety profile of selective B-cell-depleting therapies (such as anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies) has significantly expanded the therapeutic scenario for both relapsing and progressive MS patients with the identification of a new therapeutic target. The key role of B cells in triggering MS disease has been also pointed out, determining a shift from the traditional view of MS activity as largely being 'T-cell mediated' to the notion that MS-related pathological processes involve bi-directional interactions between several immune cell types, including B cells, both in the periphery and in the CNS. This review provides an updated overview of the involvement of B cells in the immune pathophysiology and pathology of MS. We summarize the rationale regarding the use of anti-CD20 therapies and the results of the main randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating the efficacy and safety profile of rituximab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and ublituximab. Suggestions regarding vaccinations and management of MS patients during COVID-19 pandemic with anti-CD20 therapies are also discussed. Finally, therapies under investigation and future perspectives of anti-CD20 therapies are taken into consideration.

Quantifying representativeness in randomized clinical trials using machine learning fairness metrics.

OBJECTIVE: We help identify subpopulations underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cohorts with respect to national, community-based or health system target populations by formulating population representativeness of RCTs as a machine learning (ML) fairness problem, deriving new representation metrics, and deploying them in easy-to-understand interactive visualization tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We represent RCT cohort enrollment as random binary classification fairness problems, and then show how ML fairness metrics based on enrollment fraction can be efficiently calculated using easily computed rates of subpopulations in RCT cohorts and target populations. We propose standardized versions of these metrics and deploy them in an interactive tool to analyze 3 RCTs with respect to type 2 diabetes and hypertension target populations in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. RESULTS: We demonstrate how the proposed metrics and associated statistics enable users to rapidly examine representativeness of all subpopulations in the RCT defined by a set of categorical traits (eg, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and blood pressure) with respect to target populations. DISCUSSION: The normalized metrics provide an intuitive standardized scale for evaluating representation across subgroups, which may have vastly different enrollment fractions and rates in RCT study cohorts. The metrics are beneficial complements to other approaches (eg, enrollment fractions) used to identify generalizability and health equity of RCTs. CONCLUSION: By quantifying the gaps between RCT and target populations, the proposed methods can support generalizability evaluation of existing RCT cohorts. The interactive visualization tool can be readily applied to identified underrepresented subgroups with respect to any desired source or target populations.

Propolis, Bee Honey, and Their Components Protect against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review of In Silico, In Vitro, and Clinical Studies.

Despite the virulence and high fatality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no specific antiviral treatment exists until the current moment. Natural agents with immune-promoting potentials such as bee products are being explored as possible treatments. Bee honey and propolis are rich in bioactive compounds that express strong antimicrobial, bactericidal, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and antioxidant activities. This review examined the literature for the anti-COVID-19 effects of bee honey and propolis, with the aim of optimizing the use of these handy products as prophylactic or adjuvant treatments for people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Molecular simulations show that flavonoids in propolis and honey (e.g., rutin, naringin, caffeic acid phenyl ester, luteolin, and artepillin C) may inhibit viral spike fusion in host cells, viral-host interactions that trigger the cytokine storm, and viral replication. Similar to the potent antiviral drug remdesivir, rutin, propolis ethanolic extract, and propolis liposomes inhibited non-structural proteins of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, and these compounds along with naringin inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero E6 cells. Propolis extracts delivered by nanocarriers exhibit better antiviral effects against SARS-CoV-2 than ethanolic extracts. In line, hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving green Brazilian propolis or a combination of honey and Nigella sativa exhibited earlier viral clearance, symptom recovery, discharge from the hospital as well as less mortality than counterparts receiving standard care alone. Thus, the use of bee products as an adjuvant treatment for COVID-19 may produce beneficial effects. Implications for treatment outcomes and issues to be considered in future studies are discussed.

How do nocebo effects in placebo groups of randomized controlled trials provide a possible explicative framework for the COVID-19 pandemic?

Introduction: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are useful to study the role of individual and contextual factors in which therapies vs placebos are administered and to provide an important perspective for understanding the phenomenon of nocebo-related risks.Areas covered: The results of nocebo effects in RCT placebo groups, measured in terms of adverse events (AEs) and dropouts, will be presented as an explicative framework for the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are the only RCTs routinely conducted during the pandemic. Information about efficacy and safety of different vaccines represents a fertile ground for nocebo phenomena. Individual and contextual factors will be emphasized in order to understand the presence of a refusal of immunization associated with a specific vaccine considered less effective and safe. Critical aspects and some guidelines will be presented in order to counteract the nocebo effects and to improve adherence to drug treatments and the vaccination campaign.Expert opinion: The nocebo effect could explain the presence of strong resistance in European countries to immunization with a vaccine perceived as less effective, compared to others. Increased awareness of the nocebo effect would be relevant as it could lead to a greater participation in the vaccination campaign and in protecting individuals against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Hydroxychloroquine Controversies: Clinical Trials, Epistemology, and the Democratization of Science.

The claim that anti-malaria drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, can cure COVID-19 became a focus of fierce political battles that pitted promoters of these pharmaceuticals, Presidents Bolsonaro and Trump among them, against "medical elites." At the center of these battles are different meanings of effectiveness in medicine, the complex role of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in proving such effectiveness, the task of medical experts and the state in regulating pharmaceuticals, patients' activism, and the collective production of medical knowledge. This article follows the trajectory of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as anti-COVID-19 drugs, focusing on the reception of views of their main scientific promoter, the French infectious disease specialist, Didier Raoult. The surprising career of these drugs, our text proposes, is fundamentally a political event, not in the narrow sense of engaging specific political fractions, but in the much broader sense of the politics of public participation in science.

Evidence and the Main Adverse Effects Regarding Drug Therapies in the War Against COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the breakthrough of COVID-19 pandemic around the world is the biggest health challenge for the clinicians, and it represents an unexpected effort to identify an effective treatment for those patients. No proven definitive therapies for this infection currently exist. Unfortunately, the infected patients increased in an alarming way every day, faster than medical evidence. At present, the expanding knowledge regarding SARS-COV-2 virology provides several potential drug targets. OBJECTIVE: Therefore, clinicians need a rapid review and guideline about the main adverse effects regarding the most prescribed drugs and, specifically, the efficacy and potential risk of each pharmacological therapy, during hospital care. METHODS: The articles review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant papers in English language reported through July 20th, 2020; a second review was performed using Web of Science until August 28th, 2020. Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials, we included case reports, case series and reviews. We found a total of 1606 related articles. The authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion. CONCLUSION: At present, despite the enormous medical effort for publishing several trials or case reports, we have not yet discovered a definitive therapy against the COVID-19 infection. This brief review aims to prompt identification of risk factors and main adverse effects in a systematic view related to therapy with partial evidence proposed to date.

COVID-19 vaccines: ethical framework concerning human challenge studies.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic associated with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread worldwide. The most favorable epidemic control scenario, which provides long-term protection against COVID-19 outbreak, is the development and distribution of an effective and safe vaccine. The need to develop a new COVID-19 vaccine is pressing; however, it is likely to take a long time, possibly several years. This is due to the time required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the proposed vaccine. and the time required to manufacture and distribute millions of doses. OBJECTIVES: To accelerate this development and associated safety testing, the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers has been suggested. The purpose of this short communication is to describe the ethical aspects of this type of testing, RESULTS: Deliberate infection of volunteers with a dangerous virus such as SARS-CoV-2 was initially considered unethical by researchers; but the current pandemic is so different from previous ones that these studies are considered ethical if certain criteria are met. Participants in human challenge studies must be relatively young, in good health and must receive the highest quality medical care, with frequent monitoring. Tests should also be performed with great caution and specialized medical supervision. Besides, the fact that obtaining vaccines faster through deliberate infection studies of healthy people has greater benefits than risks, has been demonstrated by obtaining other vaccines in other historical pandemics such as: smallpox, influenza, malaria, typhoid fever, Dengue fever and Zika. CONCLUSIONS: One possibility to shorten the time required for the development of COVID-19 vaccines is to reduce clinical phases II and III by using human challenge studies through eliberate infection of healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 after administration of the candidate vaccine. Accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine even for a few weeks or months would have a great beneficial impact on public health by saving many lives.

Covid-19 pandemic research opportunity: Is the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) missing out?

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has caused fear and panic worldwide, forcing healthcare systems to disregard conventional practices and adopt innovation to contain the infection and death. Globally, there has been a rapid proliferation of research studies and clinical trials assessing risks, infectivity and treatment. METHODS: This review assesses the opportunities and challenges in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region to engage in the conduct of high quality clinical trials during the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Opportunities are abundant for conducting clinical trials in MENA countries, including substantial cost savings, academic health centers, integrated health information systems, international accreditation, and international collaborations. Yet, the MENA region has missed out on opportunities to advance patient research during prior infectious disease outbreaks caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Ebola, and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, as evidenced by the lack of concerted research and clinical trials from the region. A large vulnerable population, especially the poor expatriate work force, the current isolation of the health centers, and the lack of an expert network or field trained task force, all contribute to challenges preventing the formation of a pan Arab research enterprise for epidemics. CONCLUSION: Quality clinical research is critical during public health emergencies to identify treatments and solutions. The efficient conduct of clinical trials requires innovative strategies in research design, approval, and dissemination. Many countries in the MENA region have an opportunity to quickly ramp up research capacity and contribute significantly to the fight against the Covid-19 global threat.