Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) drug efficacy study landscape: A systematic scoping review of clinical trials and observational studies to assess the feasibility of establishing an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform.

BACKGROUND: Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is a dermatosis which can occur after successful treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and is a public health problem in VL endemic areas. We conducted a systematic scoping review to assess the characteristics of published PKDL clinical studies, understand the scope of research and explore the feasibility and value of developing a PKDL individual patient data (IPD) platform. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was conducted to identify PKDL clinical studies by searching the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Global Index Medicus, PASCAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Ovid Global Health, Cochrane Database and CENTRAL, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Only prospective studies in humans with PKDL diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up measurements between January 1973 and March 2023 were included. Extracted data includes variables on patient characteristics, treatment regimens, diagnostic methods, geographical locations, efficacy endpoints, adverse events and statistical methodology. RESULTS: A total of 3,418 records were screened, of which 56 unique studies (n = 2,486 patients) were included in this review. Out of the 56 studies, 36 (64.3%) were from India (1983-2022), 12 (21.4%) from Sudan (1992-2021), 6 (10.7%) were from Bangladesh (1991-2019), and 2 (3.6%) from Nepal (2001-2007). Five (8.9%) studies were published between 1981-1990 (n = 193 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 1991-2000 (n = 230 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 2001-2010 (n = 198 patients), and 31 (55.4%) from 2011 onwards (n = 1,865 patients). Eight (14.3%) were randomised clinical trials, and 48 (85.7%) were non-randomised studies. The median post-treatment follow-up duration was 365 days (range: 90-540 days) in 8 RCTs and 360 days (range: 28-2,373 days) in 48 non-randomised studies. Disease diagnosis was based on clinical criterion in 3 (5.4%) studies, a mixture of clinical and parasitological methods in 47 (83.9%) and was unclear in 6 (10.7%) studies. Major drugs used for treatment were miltefosine (n = 636 patients), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) (n = 508 patients), and antinomy regimens (n = 454 patients). Ten other drug regimens were tested in 270 patients with less than 60 patients per regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified studies with very limited sample size for the three major drugs (miltefosine, L-AmB, and pentavalent antimony), while the number of patients combined across studies suggest that the IPD platform would be valuable. With the support of relevant stakeholders, the global PKDL community and sufficient financing, a PKDL IPD platform can be realised. This will allow for exploration of different aspects of treatment safety and efficacy, which can potentially guide future healthcare decisions and clinical practices.

Systematic review of the scrub typhus treatment landscape: Assessing the feasibility of an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform.

BACKGROUND: Scrub typhus is an acute febrile illness caused by intracellular bacteria from the genus Orientia. It is estimated that one billion people are at risk, with one million cases annually mainly affecting rural areas in Asia-Oceania. Relative to its burden, scrub typhus is understudied, and treatment recommendations vary with poor evidence base. These knowledge gaps could be addressed by establishing an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform, which would enable pooled, more detailed and statistically powered analyses to be conducted. This study aims to assess the characteristics of scrub typhus treatment studies and explore the feasibility and potential value of developing a scrub typhus IPD platform to address unanswered research questions. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic literature review looking for prospective scrub typhus clinical treatment studies published from 1998 to 2020. Six electronic databases (Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Ovid Global Health, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Global Index Medicus), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP were searched. We extracted data on study design, treatment tested, patient characteristics, diagnostic methods, geographical location, outcome measures, and statistical methodology. Among 3,100 articles screened, 127 were included in the analysis. 12,079 participants from 12 countries were enrolled in the identified studies. ELISA, PCR, and eschar presence were the most commonly used diagnostic methods. Doxycycline, azithromycin, and chloramphenicol were the most commonly administered antibiotics. Mortality, complications, adverse events, and clinical response were assessed in most studies. There was substantial heterogeneity in the diagnostic methods used, treatment administered (including dosing and duration), and outcome assessed across studies. There were few interventional studies and limited data collected on specific groups such as children and pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There were a limited number of interventional trials, highlighting that scrub typhus remains a neglected disease. The heterogeneous nature of the available data reflects the absence of consensus in treatment and research methodologies and poses a significant barrier to aggregating information across available published data without access to the underlying IPD. There is likely to be a substantial amount of data available to address knowledge gaps. Therefore, there is value for an IPD platform that will facilitate pooling and harmonisation of currently scattered data and enable in-depth investigation of priority research questions that can, ultimately, inform clinical practice and improve health outcomes for scrub typhus patients.

Visceral Leishmaniasis in pregnancy and vertical transmission: A systematic literature review on the therapeutic orphans.

BACKGROUND: Reports on the occurrence and outcome of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) in pregnant women is rare in published literature. The occurrence of VL in pregnancy is not systematically captured and cases are rarely followed-up to detect consequences of infection and treatment on the pregnant women and foetus. METHODS: A review of all published literature was undertaken to identify cases of VL infections among pregnant women by searching the following database: Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; World Health Organization Global Index Medicus: LILACS (Americas); IMSEAR (South-East Asia); IMEMR (Eastern Mediterranean); WPRIM (Western Pacific); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Selection criteria included any clinical reports describing the disease in pregnancy or vertical transmission of the disease in humans. Articles meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria and non-primary research articles such as textbook, chapters, letters, retrospective case description, or reports of accidental inclusion in trials were also considered. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 272 unique articles of which 54 records were included in this review; a further 18 records were identified from additional search of the references of the included studies or from personal communication leading to a total of 72 records (71 case reports/case series; 1 retrospective cohort study; 1926-2020) describing 451 cases of VL in pregnant women. The disease was detected during pregnancy in 398 (88.2%), retrospectively confirmed after giving birth in 52 (11.5%), and the time of identification was not clear in 1 (0.2%). Of the 398 pregnant women whose infection was identified during pregnancy, 346 (86.9%) received a treatment, 3 (0.8%) were untreated, and the treatment status was not clear in the remaining 49 (12.3%). Of 346 pregnant women, Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) was administered in 202 (58.4%) and pentavalent antimony (PA) in 93 (26.9%). Outcomes were reported in 176 pregnant women treated with L-AmB with 4 (2.3%) reports of maternal deaths, 5 (2.8%) miscarriages, and 2 (1.1%) foetal death/stillbirth. For PA, outcomes were reported in 88 of whom 4 (4.5%) died, 24 (27.3%) had spontaneous abortion, 2 (2.3%) had miscarriages. A total of 26 cases of confirmed, probable or suspected cases of vertical transmission were identified with a median detection time of 6 months (range: 0-18 months). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of VL treatment during pregnancy is rarely reported and under-researched. The reported articles were mainly case reports and case series and the reported information was often incomplete. From the studies identified, it is difficult to derive a generalisable information on outcomes for pregnant women and babies, although reported data favours the usage of liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of VL in pregnant women.

The Chagas disease study landscape: A systematic review of clinical and observational antiparasitic treatment studies to assess the potential for establishing an individual participant-level data platform.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease (CD), caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, affects ~6-7 million people worldwide. Significant limitations still exist in our understanding of CD. Harnessing individual participant data (IPD) from studies could support more in-depth analyses to address the many outstanding research questions. This systematic review aims to describe the characteristics and treatment practices of clinical studies in CD and assess the breadth and availability of research data for the potential establishment of a data-sharing platform. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This review includes prospective CD clinical studies published after 1997 with patients receiving a trypanocidal treatment. The following electronic databases and clinical trial registry platforms were searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Scielo, Clintrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Of the 11,966 unique citations screened, 109 (0.9%) studies (31 observational and 78 interventional) representing 23,116 patients were included. Diagnosis for patient enrolment required 1 positive test result in 5 (4.6%) studies (2 used molecular method, 1 used molecular and serology, 2 used serology and parasitological methods), 2 in 60 (55.0%), 3 in 14 (12.8%) and 4 or more in 4 (3.7%) studies. A description of treatment regimen was available for 19,199 (83.1%) patients, of whom 14,605 (76.1%) received an active treatment and 4,594 (23.9%) were assigned to a placebo/no-treatment. Of the 14,605 patients who received an active treatment, benznidazole was administered in 12,467 (85.4%), nifurtimox in 825 (5.6%), itraconazole in 284 (1.9%), allopurinol in 251 (1.7%) and other drugs in 286 (1.9%). Assessment of efficacy varied largely and was based primarily on biological outcome; parasitological efficacy relied on serology in 67/85 (78.8%) studies, molecular methods in 52/85 (61.2%), parasitological in 34/85 (40.0%), microscopy in 3/85 (3.5%) and immunohistochemistry in 1/85 (1.2%). The median time at which parasitological assessment was carried out was 79 days [interquartile range (IQR): 30-180] for the first assessment, 180 days [IQR: 60-500] for second, and 270 days [IQR: 18-545] for the third assessment. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This review demonstrates the heterogeneity of clinical practice in CD treatment and in the conduct of clinical studies. The sheer volume of potential IPD identified demonstrates the potential for development of an IPD platform for CD and that such efforts would enable in-depth analyses to optimise the limited pharmacopoeia of CD and inform prospective data collection.

Serious adverse events following treatment of visceral leishmaniasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite a historical association with poor tolerability, a comprehensive review on safety of antileishmanial chemotherapies is lacking. We carried out an update of a previous systematic review of all published clinical trials in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) from 1980 to 2019 to document any reported serious adverse events (SAEs). METHODS: For this updated systematic review, we searched the following databases from 1st Jan 2016 through 2nd of May 2019: PUBMED, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and the Global Index Medicus. We included randomised and non-randomised interventional studies aimed at assessing therapeutic efficacy and extracted the number of SAEs reported within the first 30 days of treatment initiation. The incidence rate of death (IRD) from individual treatment arms were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS: We identified 157 published studies enrolling 35,376 patients in 347 treatment arms. Pentavalent antimony was administered in 74 (21.3%), multiple-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in 52 (15.0%), amphotericin b deoxycholate in 51 (14.7%), miltefosine in 33 (9.5%), amphotericin b fat/lipid/colloid/cholesterol in 31 (8.9%), and single-dose L-AmB in 17 (4.9%) arms. There was a total of 804 SAEs reported of which 793 (including 428 deaths) were extracted at study arm level (11 SAEs were reported at study level only). During the first 30 days, there were 285 (66.6%) deaths with the overall IRD estimated at 0.068 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.041-0.114; I2 = 81.4%; 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.001-2.779] per 1,000 person-days at risk; the rate was 0.628 [95% CI: 0.368-1.021; I2 = 82.5%] in Eastern Africa, and 0.041 [95% CI: 0.021-0.081; I2 = 68.1%] in the Indian Subcontinent. In 21 study arms which clearly indicated allowing the inclusion of patients with HIV co-infections the IRD was 0.575 [95% CI: 0.244-1.355; I2 = 91.9%] compared to 0.043 [95% CI: 0.020-0.090; I2 = 62.5%] in 160 arms which excluded HIV co-infections. CONCLUSION: Mortality within the first 30 days of VL treatment initiation was a rarely reported event in clinical trials with an overall estimated rate of 0.068 deaths per 1,000 person-days at risk, though it varied across regions and patient populations. These estimates may serve as a benchmark for future trials against which mortality data from prospective and pharmacovigilance studies can be compared. The methodological limitations exposed by our review support the need to assemble individual patient data (IPD) to conduct robust IPD meta-analyses and generate stronger evidence from existing trials to support treatment guidelines and guide future research.

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results.  Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions:  Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence.  The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.

A living systematic review protocol for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website ( COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.