The effect of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530.

Randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a brief, communication-based, substance use preventive intervention for parents of adolescents: Protocol for the SUPPER Project (Substance Use Prevention Promoted by Eating family meals Regularly).

BACKGROUND: Substance use among adolescents in the U.S. is associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes in the long-term. Universal youth-focused substance use prevention programs have demonstrated effectiveness but are often not sustainable due to the significant amount of time, effort, and resources required. We describe a trial protocol for a brief, low-participant-burden intervention to improve substance use-specific parent-child communication through the promotion of family meals and increased parental engagement. METHODS: This study is a parallel-group randomized controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of a 13-week intervention. A total of 500 dyads of parents and their 5th-7th grade children are recruited from across Massachusetts. Dyads are randomized to the intervention or attention-control condition using block urn randomization, based on child grade, gender, and school. Parents/guardians in the substance use preventive intervention arm receive a short handbook, attend two meetings with an interventionist, and receive two SMS messages per week. Parents/guardians in the control arm receive the same dose but with content focused on nutrition, physical activity, and weight stigma. Participant dyads submit videos of family meals, audio recordings of prompted conversations, and quantitative surveys over an 18-month period (baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18 months post-intervention). The primary outcomes measure the quantity and quality of parent-child substance use conversations and proximal child indicators (i.e., substance use attitudes and expectancies, affiliation with substance-using peers, and intentions and willingness to use substances). The secondary outcome is child substance use initiation. DISCUSSION: This is a novel, brief, communication-focused intervention for parents/guardians that was designed to reduce participant burden. The intervention has the potential to improve parent-child engagement and communication and conversations about substance use specifically and decrease child substance use risk factors and substance use initiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03925220. Registered on 24 April 2019.

Metastatic gastroesophageal cancer in older patients - is this patient cohort represented in clinical trials?

BACKGROUND: Older patients are underrepresented in the clinical trials that determine the standards of care for oncological treatment. We conducted a review to identify whether there have been age-restrictive inclusion criteria in clinical trials over the last twenty five years, focusing on patients with metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: A search strategy was developed encompassing Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library databases. Completed phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating systemic anti-cancer therapies in metastatic gastroesophageal malignancies from 1st January 1995 to 18th November 2020 were identified. These were screened for eligibility using reference management software (Covidence; Veritas Health Innovation Ltd). Data including age inclusion/exclusion criteria and median age of participants were recorded. The percentage of patients ≥ 65 enrolled was collected where available. The change over time in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion was estimated using a linear probability model. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three phase III studies were identified and screened, with 66 trials remaining for final analysis. The majority of trials were Asian (48%; n = 32) and predominantly evaluated gastric malignancies, (86%; n = 56). The median age of participants was 62 (range 18-94). Thirty-two percent (n = 21) of studies specified an upper age limit for inclusion and over half of these were Asian studies. The median age of exclusion was 75 (range 65-80). All studies prior to 2003 used an upper age exclusion (n = 12); whereas only 9 that started in 2003 or later did (17%). Among later studies, there was a very modest downward yearly-trend in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion (-0.02 per year; 95%CI -0.05 to 0.01; p = 0.31). Fifty-two percent (n = 34) of studies specified the proportion of their study population who were ≥ 65 years. Older patients represented only 36% of the trial populations in these studies (range 7-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Recent years have seen improvements in clinical trial protocols, with many no longer specifying restrictive age criteria. Reasons for poor representation of older patients are complex and ongoing efforts are needed to broaden eligibility criteria and prioritise the inclusion of older adults in clinical trials.

Effects of select dietary supplements on the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory tract infections: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: Viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) have been recognized as a global public health burden. Despite current theories about their effectiveness, the true benefits of dietary supplements on the prevention and treatment of viral RTIs remain elusive, due to contradictory reports. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dietary supplements on the prevention and treatment of viral RTIs.Areas covered: We systematically searched databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar through 4 March 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of consuming selected dietary supplements on the prevention or treatment of viral RTIs.Expert opinion: Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials (n = 16,797 participants) were eligible and included. Namely, vitamin D supplementation appeared to improve viral RTIs across cohorts particulate in those with vitamin D deficiency. Among the evaluated dietary supplements, specific lactobacillus strains were used most commonly with selected prebiotics that showed potentially positive effects on the prevention and treatment of viral RTIs. Further, ginseng extract supplementation may effectively prevent viral RTIs as adjuvant therapy. However, longitudinal research is required to confirm these observations and address the optimal dose, duration, and safety of dietary supplements being publicly recommended.

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.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Decreased mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients treated with corticosteroids: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The possible benefits associated with corticosteroid treatment in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients are not fully known. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to assess the effect of corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with ARDS. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2021 via Ovid to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with ARDS. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, oxygenation improvement (PaO2/FIO2 ratios), and adverse events. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1371 participants were analyzed. The pooled analysis revealed that glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced mortality [relative risk (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.93; P < 0.01; I2 = 37], and the statistical power was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Glucocorticoids might also significantly increase the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 (mean deviation 3.66 days, 95% CI 2.64-4.68; P < 0.01) and improve oxygenation (standardized mean difference 4.17; 95% CI 2.32-6.02; P < 0.01). In addition, glucocorticoid use was not associated with increased risks of new infection (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.70-1.01; P = 0.07) and hyperglycemia (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.99-1.23; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The use of glucocorticoids might result in reduced mortality in patients with ARDS. Glucocorticoids might be recommended as an adjunct to standard care for ARDS; however, the optimal dose and duration of steroid therapy remains unknown and further studies are needed.

Potential impact of COVID-19 on ongoing clinical trials: a simulation study with the neurological Yale Global Tic Severity Scale based on the CANNA-TICS study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifold impacts on clinical trials. In response, drug regulatory agencies and public health bodies have issued guidance on how to assess potential impacts on ongoing clinical trials and stress the importance of a risk-assessment as a pre-requisite for modifications to the clinical trial conduct. This article presents a simulation study to assess the impact on the power of an ongoing clinical trial without the need to unblind trial data and compromise trial integrity. In the context of the CANNA-TICS trial, investigating the effect of nabiximols on reducing the total tic score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS-TTS) in patients with chronic tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, the impact of the two COVID-19 related intercurrent events handled by a treatment policy strategy is investigated using a multiplicative and additive data generating model. The empirical power is examined for the analysis of the YGTSS-TTS as a continuous and dichotomized endpoint using analysis techniques adjusted and unadjusted for the occurrence of the intercurrent event. In the investigated scenarios, the simulation studies showed that substantial power losses are possible, potentially making sample size increases necessary to retain sufficient power. However, we were also able to identify scenarios with only limited loss of power. By adjusting for the occurrence of the intercurrent event, the power loss could be diminished to different degrees in most scenarios. In summary, the presented risk assessment approach may support decisions on trial modifications like sample size increases, while maintaining trial integrity.

[Real-life data and Covid-19: The third avenue of reseach]. / Données de vie réelle et Covid-19 : la troisième voie.

The analysis of real-life data from hospital information systems could make possible to decide on the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 treatments by avoiding the pitfalls of preliminary studies and randomized clinical trials. The different drugs tested in current clinical trials are already widely prescribed to patients by doctors in hospitals, and can therefore be immediately analysed according to validated methodological standards.

Randomised controlled trials for COVID-19: evaluation of optimal randomisation methodologies-need for data validation of the completed trials and to improve ongoing and future randomised trial designs.

During the emerging COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, initially there were no proven treatment options. With the release of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results, we are beginning to see possible treatment options for COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial showed an absolute risk reduction in mortality by 2.8% with dexamethasone, and the ACTT-1 trial showed that treatment with remdesivir reduced the time to recovery by 4 days. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir did not show any mortality benefit in either the RECOVERY or World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Brazilian HCQ trials did not show any benefit for HCQ based on the seven-point ordinal scale outcomes. The randomisation methodologies utilised in these controlled trials and the quality of published data were reviewed to examine their adaptability to treat patients. We found that the randomisation methodologies of these trials were suboptimal for matching the studied groups based on disease severity among critically-ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients with high mortality rates. The published literature is very limited regarding the disease severity metrics among the compared groups and failed to show that the data are without fatal sampling errors and sampling biases. We also found that there is a definite need for the validation of data in these trials along with additional important disease severity metrics to ensure that the trials' conclusions are accurate. We also propose proper randomisation methodologies for the design of RCTs for COVID-19 as well as guidance for the publication of COVID-19 trial results.

Reporting and design of randomized controlled trials for COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs. DATA SOURCES: We conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications. STUDY SELECTION: After screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints. DATA EXTRACTION: Trial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Characteristics of clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross sectional analysis.

Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries. RESULTS: A total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: A minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.