■在记录的针对COVID-19的8,000多项随机试验中,约80%是治疗方法,17%的人报告了结果。大约1%是自适应或平台试验,有25个有结果,29篇期刊文章和10篇预印本文章。
我们进行了广泛的文献综述,以解决有关COVID-19试验的四个问题,特别是平台/自适应试验的作用和影响以及经验教训。
■主要发现是:第一季度。进行试验和纳入政策的社会价值?COVID-19药物治疗差异很大,变化很大,在最终的临床试验中发现有效的药物取代了未经证实的药物。地塞米松可能挽救了1/2百万人的生命,并且在一系列国家和人口中具有成本效益,而雷姆德西韦的成本效益是不确定的。已发表的COVID-19治疗对经济和卫生系统的影响很少见。Q2.适应性试验设计的问题。在注册的77个平台试验中,6大平台试验,有大约50个治疗臂,招募了约135,000名参与者,资金超过1亿美元。Q3.良好实践模式。简化的设置流程,例如灵活和快速的融资,伦理,治理批准至关重要。为了方便招聘,简单而精简的研究过程,和现有的研究网络来协调试验计划,设计,行为和实践的改变对成功至关重要。Q4.要避免的潜在冲突?在通过试验治疗患者时,平衡个人和集体权利以及在医疗保健和研究之间分配稀缺资源具有挑战性。商业和非商业部门之间存在紧张关系,以及学术和公共卫生利益,例如出版和资金驱动的指标和公共利益。
■需要(i)减少小的,重复,单中心试验,(ii)加强协调,以确保为治疗进行强有力的研究,(iii)更广泛地采用自适应/平台试验设计,以应对快速发展的证据环境。
UNASSIGNED: Of over 8,000 recorded randomised trials addressing COVID-19, around 80% were of treatments, and 17% have reported results. Approximately 1% were adaptive or platform trials, with 25 having results available, across 29 journal articles and 10 preprint articles.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an extensive literature review to address four questions about COVID-19 trials, particularly the role and impact of platform/adaptive trials and lessons learned.
UNASSIGNED: The key findings were: Q1. Social value in conducting trials and uptake into policy? COVID-19 drug treatments varied substantially and changed considerably, with drugs found effective in definitive clinical trials replacing unproven drugs. Dexamethasone has likely saved ½-2 million lives, and was cost effective across a range of countries and populations, whereas the cost effectiveness of remdesivir is uncertain. Published economic and health system impacts of COVID-19 treatments were infrequent. Q2. Issues with adaptive trial designs. Of the 77 platform trials registered, 6 major platform trials, with approximately 50 treatment arms, recruited ~135,000 participants with funding over $100 million. Q3. Models of good practice. Streamlined set-up processes such as flexible and fast-track funding, ethics, and governance approvals are vital. To facilitate recruitment, simple and streamlined research processes, and pre-existing research networks to coordinate trial planning, design, conduct and practice change are crucial to success. Q4. Potential conflicts to avoid? When treating patients through trials, balancing individual and collective rights and allocating scarce resources between healthcare and research are challenging. Tensions occur between commercial and non-commercial sectors, and academic and public health interests, such as publication and funding driven indicators and the public good.
UNASSIGNED: There is a need to (i) reduce small, repetitive, single centre trials, (ii) increase coordination to ensure robust research conducted for treatments, and (iii) a wider adoption of adaptive/platform trial designs to respond to fast-evolving evidence landscape.