Keywords
COVID-19, clinical trials, coronavirus, SARS-CoV2
This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.
This article is included in the Coronavirus collection.
COVID-19, clinical trials, coronavirus, SARS-CoV2
We added reviewers main observations. In the methods section we eliminated the paragraph regarding the creation of new variables from the extracted data according to the reviewer comments. We also clarified one inclusion criteria regarding dates. We added initials of the names of the independent reviewers in brackets. We also added a phrase regarding funding sources of the trials according to clinicaltrial.gov definitions. We changed conclusions of the manuscript. We include two new references.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ana Marusic
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Andrea Cortegiani
The world is currently experiencing a general crisis regarding the healthcare system. SARS-CoV-2 has become a pandemic, and it has affected over 150 countries in a matter of weeks. The inability of many public health systems to address the spread of this disease has become notorious in many countries where the number of individuals with the disease and the number of deaths increase every day.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 betacoronavirus. COVID-19 shares 79% sequence identity with SARS-CoV, the virus that caused a major outbreak in 2002–20031.
The clinical characteristics of COVID-19 include pyrexia, radiological signs of acute respiratory distress, reduced or normal white blood cells, lymphopenia, and a failure to resolve complications (e.g., secondary bacterial infections such as bacterial pneumonia) after 3 to 5 days of antibiotic treatment2.
The presence of contradictory information on possible treatments for this disease, some of which lacks a scientific foundation, has generated irresponsible actions regarding approached to treat COVID-193.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design for evaluating the efficacy and safety of clinical interventions and are valued for their statistical rigor and low levels of bias4.
Regulatory agencies are also contributing to the response to the coronavirus outbreak by providing general recommendations on how to use certain medicines that are still under investigation and guidance on measures that should be taken to stop the spread of the disease5.
ClinicalTrials.gov is a clinical trials registry that provides patients, family, health care professionals, investigators, and the general public with information about clinical studies on a wide range of diseases and conditions. This site is supported by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States of America6.
This database provides a public list of initiated, ongoing, and completed clinical trials, and it is considered a source of summary result information to complement the medical literature. It is the world’s largest clinical trial registry, and it is publicly available and accessible to all citizens7.
How should COVID-19 be treated and what treatment options should be made available? Well-designed clinical trials are the answer to this question since they are the only type of study that is capable of assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic approaches for any disease8,9.
In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required that intervention trials be registered prior to the enrollment of the first subject as a prerequisite for publication in scientific journals. The registration of all clinical trials in any of the available public databases guarantees the transparency of research.
The numbers of cases and deaths caused by this pandemic are increasing continuously, demonstrating the need to identify therapeutic options for the disease. Drug repurposing may prove to be the best strategy for the quick development of novel therapeutic options10.
There are several drugs that are being evaluated, and some of the trials have yet to be initiated. Infected persons need to be treated with these drugs, but it is also necessary to determine the efficacy and safety profile of the therapies that are being used. There is a need to increase knowledge about the disease and enhance research efforts to find a cure for COVID-19, which will provide a scientific basis to make important decisions in health systems worldwide.
In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to examine the main characteristics of COVID-19-related clinical trials that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from January to March 27th, 2020.
This is a cross-sectional analysis of all interventional studies that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from January to March 27th, 2020. The database was downloaded on May 15th, 2020.
A combination of search terms was used to retrieve interventional trials that examined COVID-19 (“coronavirus,” “SARS- CoV-2”, COVID-19). All trials were reviewed by two independent reviewers (MF and PG). Data on the design, masking, randomization, primary purpose, interventions, sample size grouping, type of therapeutic approaches and location of the included studies were extracted by the two reviewers (MF and PG) manually. Information about recruitment status, phases of the trials, and funding sources were used the same way the database was established. The search was restricted to interventional trials. The reviewers MF and PG extracted the data and checked each other’s work for accuracy. Disagreements between the two reviewers were settled by consensus.
Most of the information regarding the design of the studies was in the same column in the original downloaded database; for the purposes of our analysis, elements of the design were separated into different variables within the database, and no additional form was used. We extracted the information in the same way as it is reflected in ClinicalTrials.gov: (see ClinicalTrials.gov data elements definitions):
Clinical trials were classified according to phase (I, I/II, III, II/III, III, or IV), type of intervention models (single group assignment, parallel assignment, and sequential assignment), type of allocation (randomized allocation, nonrandomized and not applicable in case there was only one group of treatment), and type of masking (open label, single-blind masking, double-blind masking, triple-blind masking and quadruple-blind masking).
Other characteristics of interest included primary purpose (basic science, treatment, supportive care, screening, diagnosis, prevention, health research services and others) and intervention type (drug, biological, behavioral, medical devices, diagnostic or other).
Recruitment status was also recorded (not yet recruiting: the study has not started recruiting participants; recruiting: the study is currently recruiting participants; not recruiting: the study is ongoing, and participants are receiving an intervention or being examined, but potential participants are not currently being recruited or enrolled; terminated: the study has stopped early and will not start again; completed: the study has ended normally, and participants are no longer being examined or treated; withdrawn: the study stopped early, before enrolling its first participant; or unknown: a study on ClinicalTrials.gov whose last known status was recruiting, not yet recruiting, or active, not recruiting but that has passed its completion date and the status has not been verified within the past 2 years),
We included trials with participants of all ages and genders. We classified trials according to the estimated number of participants and categorized them as follows: up to 100, 101–500, 501–1000, + 1000 participants. We used the traditional development phases approach for the size of trials.
We also recorded the funding source for the trial. This describes the organization that provides funding or support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting. Organizations listed as sponsors and collaborators for a study are considered the funders of the study. Classification of funding sources was the same used by clinicaltrial.gov.
Data were extracted directly from the ClinicalTrials.gov database, which contains information for all registry records, and we downloaded a file in comma-separated values (.csv) format (see underlying data: (https://osf.io/28jh7/)11). We performed a descriptive analysis of COVID-19-related clinical trials registered in the database downloaded on May 15th, 2020.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the trial characteristics: categorical variables are reported as frequencies and percentages, while enrollment rate is reported as the median and IQR. All the data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0.
Among the 339,723 studies registered in the database, 829 were COVID-19-related trials, 519 of which were interventional studies (62.6%), making them eligible for inclusion in our study (Figure 1).
Phase II and Phase III studies were the most common (30.1% and 18.1%, respectively). Parallel assignment design was the most common study design (77.8%). Most clinical trials were open-label (59.7%) and randomized (75.5%). Disease treatment trials accounted for 75.5% of the eligible trials. Approximately 60% of the studies were evaluating drugs (Table 111).
The funding characteristics for all interventional trials are displayed in Table 211. The most common source of funding was the pharmaceutical industry (12.3%).
As of May 2020, 243 of 519 trials were recruiting subjects, while 42.4% had their status as ‘‘not yet recruiting’’. Only ten of the trials were completed, and 25 were enrolling by invitation. A total of 0.6% were suspended trials, and 1.0% were withdrawn trials. Most of the studies (87.1%) included subjects who were 18 years and older (Table 211).
The median number of trials registered over time was 58 trials per month from January to April 2020. Figure 2 shows the increasing rate of trials posted on this website. During the first days of May, the number of trials registered was 128. Most of the trials found in this review are scheduled to end in 2020.
To assess the enrollment of participants in clinical trials, the authors recategorized this variable into four groups. It was observed that 42.6% of trials had up to 100 participants, and 39.5% had 101–500 participants (Figure 3). The median enrollment was 144 participants (IQR 350).
Among the included studies, 22.8% were investigating antimalarial agents, while 10.8% were investigating the use of convalescent plasma. Other therapeutics under evaluation included new vaccines (2.6%) as well as monoclonal antibodies, interferons and antiretrovirals (Table 311).
This study provides a review of COVID-19-related clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov during the first five months of 2020. We examine the characteristics of the trials, including their design, location, funding characteristics, recruitment status, age of participants, gender of participants and study sample size. A living protocol has been publish and the intention is to examined COVID-19-related trials registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform12.
Phase II and Phase III were the most common study phases. Almost all the included trials included participants of both sexes, the minority was in only in women but not related to specific populations; most of them included adults and older adults and aged between 18 and 99 years old.
More than 75% of the studies we analyzed were randomized trials, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy and safety profile of any new treatment or for a new medical indication. The number of registered trials was high, most likely due to the efforts of many countries to combat this novel disease for which there is currently no treatment. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic from the community, particularly from researchers, has been excellent, but it is necessary to ensure the rights, safety and wellbeing of subjects. Well-designed clinical trials are important for guaranteeing these rights.
A large proportion of studies (42.6%) enrolled 100 or fewer patients, but these studies are in the early phases of development, and thus, we are not concerned that these studies are underpowered or have a high risk of type II errors (signification level), which would lead to inappropriate conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a therapeutic approach13,14.
Overall, most trials focused on the treatment of the disease. This indicates that the possible therapeutic benefits of these interventions include reducing the number of fatal events due to the disease.
As indicated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved any drugs for treating COVID-19 that have demonstrated an adequate safety profile and adequate efficacy in randomized clinical trials with control groups15. According to the FDA, therapies that are under investigation to treat COVID-19 should only be examined in randomized controlled trials15.
Among the included studies, approximately 22% are evaluating antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Available evidence regarding the use of chloroquine in COVID-19 patients is limited, so there is still very low confidence in its efficacy for treating COVID-19. The use of chloroquine in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 should be analyzed in light of both its promise and the potential adverse effects that have been observed in past endeavors to treat intense viral illnesses with chloroquine16.
A systematic review of the use of chloroquine concluded that there is sufficient evidence of its effectiveness and safety for other indications, which justifies the clinical research on the use of chloroquine to treat patients with COVID-1917.
Currently, the use of the Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered Interventions (MEURI) framework or the ethical approval of clinical trials are of vital importance, as stated by the World Health Organization17,18.
We found that the second most commonly used treatment was convalescent plasma, which is examined in 10.3% of the included studies. Using plasma for convalescent patients has been successfully used for the treatment of several viral diseases during different outbreaks, such as the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, the 2009–2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic19. Patients accepting this treatment showed benefits approximately 1 week later, suggesting that high titer levels can be used to effectively neutralize the virus, avoid inflammatory responses and improve symptomatology without severe adverse events20. Information from China has shown that this therapy brings clinical and radiological improvement, decreases viral loads and increases survival times21.
Several studies have evaluated multiple drugs with in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and/or immunomodulatory effects that may have clinical benefit. We found that the use of lopinavir combined with ritonavir in the majority of cases was very frequent. The combination of these two drugs and other antiviral agents in the early stages of COVID-19 infection might hold promise for treating COVID-1917.
Favipiravir was evaluated in 1.3% of the registered trials. This drug is considered a broad-spectrum antiviral that shows promise in the treatment of influenza virus infections, particularly due to the apparent lack resistant mutations against the drug in cell culture or animal studies22.
Remdesivir has also demonstrated its efficacy in inhibiting coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV in vitro23. The use of remdesivir has been shown to limit the mortality rate of seriously ill patients needing invasive ventilation and patients who did not need invasive ventilation by 18% and 5%, respectively17.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guide and the CDC have stated that there is no current evidence to recommend a specific antiviral treatment for patients with confirmed COVID-19, and such evidence can only derive from a controlled clinical trial18,24.
In a study of available scientific information, a group of scientists from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, concluded that no studies have provided high-quality evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or lopinavir/ritonavir to treat patients with COVID-1925.
Regarding the use of nitric oxide, The Society of Critical Care Medicine recommends against the routine use of iNO in patients with COVID-19-induced pneumonia. Instead, they suggest the use of this treatment only in mechanically ventilated patients with severe ARDS and hypoxemia despite other rescue strategies24.
There are also a few studies that are evaluating vaccines (2.6%); additionally, there are many pharmaceutical companies developing new vaccines, but many of these evaluations are still in the preclinical stages26
There are challenges in conducting clinical research on COVID-19, and these challenges are impacting the health systems around the world. There is good clinical guidance27 on how sponsors should adjust the management of clinical trials and participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines must be followed to ensure that clinical trials are performed according national and international standards during this pandemic.
This is a descriptive assessment of the current information regarding COVID-19 clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry until March 2020. This database is updated frequently, is very user-friendly and provides transparency regarding the type, design, distribution, and funding of clinical trials.
This study has some limitations. ClinicalTrials.gov does not include all the COVID-19 clinical trials registered and performed around the world. This study focuses on only one database; ClinicalTrials.gov is certainly one of the most important sources of information, but many others also provide valuable information. WHO's ICTRP is not very friendly database for quantitative analysis that is why is was not explored to describe clinical trials that are registered in this platform.
The efficacy and safety profile of many different therapeutic measures for patients infected by COVID-19 are being investigated. More than 500 studies have been registered within ClinicalTrials.gov. Most of these studies are interventional clinical trials evaluating drugs or biological agents. These trials have already started and are evaluating different therapeutic approaches for COVID-19 treatment. It is necessary to discover new classes of medicines.
Open Science Framework: Clinical trials characteristics for treatment of COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27QCP11
This project contains the following underlying data:
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
We would like to thank the Universidad de Las Américas for its support for this work.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Trial registration and transparency, research integrity
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Intensive care
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
References
1. Kimmel S, Califf R, Dean N, Goodman S, et al.: COVID-19 Clinical Trials: A Teachable Moment for Improving Our Research Infrastructure and Relevance. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020. Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Intensive care
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Trial registration and transparency, research integrity
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 16 Jun 21 |
read | read |
Version 1 30 Jul 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)