scholarly journals Clinical Trials Developed in Brazil on Covid-19: What Is Being Researched?

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isla Camilla Carvalho Laureano ◽  
Alidianne Fabia Cabral Cavalcanti ◽  
Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Antithrombotic Agents ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Therapeutic Protocol ◽  
Public Health Challenges ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Great Public Health ◽  
Pharmaceutical Biotechnology

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) has brought great public health challenges into our lives. To date, there has been no specific therapeutic protocol for this disease, which requires a study with high-quality evidence. Objectives: To analyze clinical trials on COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Documentary research was conducted on the clinical trial registration platform. For the search strategy, the “COVID-19” keyword was established in the “condition or disease” section and “Brazil” in the “country” section. No limit on the search period was considered. Data were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 81 registered clinical trials, 48 met the eligibility criteria. The sample size ranged from 10 to 3,000 individuals. Most studies recruited individuals aged 18 - 64 years (48.5%) and > 65 years (48.5%). Regarding the study design, randomized (91.6%), parallel (89.5%), quadruple-blind (39.6%), and therapeutic (97.9%) types were more frequent. Most studies used standard two-arm trial (70.8%), used drugs (79.2%), placebo (58.3%), and were sponsored by pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies and universities with 33.3% and 29.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Clinical trials under development in Brazil on COVID-19 are mostly carried out with adult and elderly participants, and regarding the study design, have a predominance of randomized allocation, parallel model, quadruple-blind masking with a therapeutic purpose. Most studies use antithrombotic agents or combinations of antithrombotic agents.

scholarly journals Clinical Trials on COVID-19: What is Being Researched in the United States?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isla Camilla Carvalho Laureano ◽  
Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
The United States ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Open Design ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Pharmaceutical Biotechnology

The emergence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019 has brought great challenges to public health worldwide and, to date, there is no specific approved therapeutic protocol. Therefore, this chapter will analyze types of intervention for use in patients with COVID-19 developed by American researchers from records made on the Clinical Trials platform. For the search strategy, keywords “COVID-19” in the “Condition or Disease” section and “United States” in the “Country” section were used. No filters were applied. Data were descriptively analyzed. In total, 1,182 studies were obtained, of which 496 met the eligibility criteria. Sample size ranged from 1 to 10,000 participants. Most studies involved the age group of 18–64 years (48.6%). As for design, randomized type (80.5%), parallel (75.6%), open designs (38.7%) and those with therapeutic purpose (88.3%) were more frequent. Most clinical trials used the two-arm trial (67.3%), researched drugs (64.8%), used placebo (55.2%) and were sponsored by pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies (35.4%). Clinical trials developed by American researchers on COVID-19 involve adult and elderly participants, with predominance of randomized, parallel and open design, for therapeutic purposes and mostly evaluated immunosuppressants or combinations of antivirals/immunosuppressants. The drugs and biological products Remdesivir, Baricitinib in combination with Remdesivir, Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab, REGEN-COV and COVID-19 convalescent plasma were also used, authorized for emergency use.

scholarly journals Safety and Effectiveness of Favipiravir for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Rapid Review of Available Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Registration System ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
First Time

Context: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) appeared for the first time in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Due to the lack of unified and integrated evidence for Favipiravir, this study was conducted to rapidly review the existing evidence to help evidence-based decision-making on the therapeutic potential of this drug in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Evidence Acquisition: This study is a rapid Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By searching pertinent databases, the research team collected relevant articles and tried to create a policy guide through a thematic approach. This rapid review was done in four steps: (1) Searching for evidence through databases; (2) screening the evidence considering eligibility criteria; (3) data extraction; and (4) analyzing the data through thematic analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion criteria, four studies were finally found, including three review studies and a clinical trial that was temporarily removed by its publisher from the journal’s website. After searching the sources mentioned in the articles, two ongoing clinical trials were found in China. Also, by searching the clinical trial website, www.clinicaltrials.gov, five clinical trials were found in the search. The result of the search in the clinical trial registration system in Iran showed a study that is in the process of patient recruitment. A limited number of other articles were found, mostly in the form of reflections from physicians or researchers and letters to editors who have predicted the drug’s performance on SARS-CoV-2, which needs further clinical study to be approved. Conclusions: With the available evidence, it is not possible to make a definite conclusion about the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

scholarly journals Real-World Data for Planning Eligibility Criteria and Enhancing Recruitment: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Evans ◽  
Dianne Paraoan ◽  
Jane Perlmutter ◽  
Sudha R. Raman ◽  
John J. Sheehan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
World Data ◽  
Study Planning ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Functional Teams ◽  
Data Driven Decisions

AbstractThe growing availability of real-world data (RWD) creates opportunities for new evidence generation and improved efficiency across the research enterprise. To varying degrees, sponsors now regularly use RWD to make data-driven decisions about trial feasibility, based on assessment of eligibility criteria for planned clinical trials. Increasingly, RWD are being used to support targeted, timely, and personalized outreach to potential trial participants that may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the recruitment process. This paper highlights recommendations and resources, including specific case studies, developed by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) for applying RWD to planning eligibility criteria and recruiting for clinical trials. Developed through a multi-stakeholder, consensus- and evidence-driven process, these actionable tools support researchers in (1) determining whether RWD are fit for purpose with respect to study planning and recruitment, (2) engaging cross-functional teams in the use of RWD for study planning and recruitment, and (3) understanding patient and site needs to develop successful and patient-centric approaches to RWD-supported recruitment. Future considerations for the use of RWD are explored, including ensuring full patient understanding of data use and developing global datasets.

scholarly journals On the design of early-phase Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials with cerebrospinal fluid tau outcomes

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110344
Author(s):  
Michelle M Nuño ◽  
Joshua D Grill ◽  
Daniel L Gillen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Phosphorylated Tau ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Total Tau ◽  
Prodromal Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Study Power

Background/Aims: The focus of Alzheimer’s disease studies has shifted to earlier disease stages, including mild cognitive impairment. Biomarker inclusion criteria are often incorporated into mild cognitive impairment clinical trials to identify individuals with “prodromal Alzheimer’s disease” to ensure appropriate drug targets and enrich for participants likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease dementia. The use of these eligibility criteria may affect study power. Methods: We investigated outcome variability and study power in the setting of proof-of-concept prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials that incorporate cerebrospinal fluid levels of total tau (t-tau) and phosphorylated (p-tau) as primary outcomes and how differing biomarker inclusion criteria affect power. We used data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative to model trial scenarios and to estimate the variance and within-subject correlation of total and phosphorylated tau. These estimates were then used to investigate the differences in study power for trials considering these two surrogate outcomes. Results: Patient characteristics were similar for all eligibility criteria. The lowest outcome variance and highest within-subject correlation were obtained when phosphorylated tau was used as an eligibility criterion, compared to amyloid beta or total tau, regardless of whether total tau or phosphorylated tau were used as primary outcomes. Power increased when eligibility criteria were broadened to allow for enrollment of subjects with either low amyloid beta or high phosphorylated tau. Conclusion: Specific biomarker inclusion criteria may impact statistical power in trials using total tau or phosphorylated tau as the primary outcome. In concert with other important considerations such as treatment target and population of clinical interest, these results may have implications to the integrity and efficiency of prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trial designs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous rtPA in Ischemic Strokes Due to Small-Vessel Occlusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Karaszewski ◽  
Adam Wyszomirski ◽  
Bartosz Jabłoński ◽  
David J. Werring ◽  
Dominika Tomaka
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Vessel Disease ◽  
Small Vessel ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Excellent Outcome ◽  
Symptomatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage

AbstractIntravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (iv-rtPA) has been routinely used to treat ischemic stroke for 25 years, following large clinical trials. However, there are few prospective studies on the efficacy and safety of this therapy in strokes attributed to cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). We evaluated functional outcome (modified Rankin scale, mRS) and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) using all available data on the effects of iv-rtPA in SVD-related ischemic stroke (defined either using neuroimaging, clinical features, or both). Using fixed-effect and random-effects models, we calculated the pooled effect estimates with regard to excellent and favorable outcomes (mRS=0–1 and 0–2 respectively, at 3 months), and the rate of sICH. Twenty-three studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, 11 of which were comparative, and there were only 3 randomized clinical trials. In adjusted analyses, there was an increased odds of excellent outcome (adjusted OR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.29–1.82, I2: 0%) or favorable outcome (adjusted OR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.31–2.15,I2: 0%) in patients who received iv-rtPA compared with placebo. Across the six studies which reported it, the incidence of sICH was higher in the treatment group (M-H RR = 8.83, 95% CI: 2.76–28.27). The pooled rate of sICH in patients with SVD administered iv-rtPA was only 0.72% (95% CI: 0.12%–1.64%). We conclude that when ischemic stroke attributed to SVD is considered separately, available data on the effects of iv-rtPA therapy are insufficient for the highest level of recommendation, but it seems to be safe. Although further therapeutic trials in SVD-related ischemic stroke appear to be justified, our findings should not prevent its continued use for this group of patients in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Real-World: Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1388
Author(s):  
Manlio Mencoboni ◽  
Marcello Ceppi ◽  
Marco Bruzzone ◽  
Paola Taveggia ◽  
Alessia Cavo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Immunotherapy based on anti PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is the new standard of advanced non-small cell lung cancers. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab and atezolizumab are used in clinical practice. The strict eligibility criteria of clinical trials do not allow researchers to fully represent treatment effects in the patients that will ultimately use these drugs. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these drugs, and more generally of ICIs, as second-line therapy in NSCLC patients in real world practice. MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched to include original studies published between January 2015 and April 2020. A total of 32 studies was included in the meta-analysis. The overall radiological response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 21%, 52%, 3.35 months and 9.98 months, respectively. The results did not change when analysis was adjusted for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) and age. A unitary increase in the percent of patients with liver and CNS metastases reduced the occurrence of DCR by 7% (p < 0.001) and the median PFS by 2% (p = 0.010), respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in everyday practice is comparable to that in clinical trials.

Eligibility criteria and clinical trials: An FDA perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 106515
Author(s):  
Mili Duggal ◽  
Leonard Sacks ◽  
Kaveeta Vasisht
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

scholarly journals Outcomes of patients with solid tumour malignancies treated with first-line immuno-oncology agents who do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 151 ◽  
pp. 115-125
Author(s):  
Chun L. Gan ◽  
Igor Stukalin ◽  
Daniel E. Meyers ◽  
Shaan Dudani ◽  
Heidi A.I. Grosjean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Solid Tumour ◽  
First Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Clinical Trial Population Representativeness Using Electronic Health Records Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (04) ◽  
pp. 816-825
Author(s):  
Yingcheng Sun ◽  
Alex Butler ◽  
Ibrahim Diallo ◽  
Jae Hyun Kim ◽  
Casey Ta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
The United States ◽  
Design Stage ◽  
Common Data Model ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Electronic Health

Abstract Background Clinical trials are the gold standard for generating robust medical evidence, but clinical trial results often raise generalizability concerns, which can be attributed to the lack of population representativeness. The electronic health records (EHRs) data are useful for estimating the population representativeness of clinical trial study population. Objectives This research aims to estimate the population representativeness of clinical trials systematically using EHR data during the early design stage. Methods We present an end-to-end analytical framework for transforming free-text clinical trial eligibility criteria into executable database queries conformant with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model and for systematically quantifying the population representativeness for each clinical trial. Results We calculated the population representativeness of 782 novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials and 3,827 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) trials in the United States respectively using this framework. With the use of overly restrictive eligibility criteria, 85.7% of the COVID-19 trials and 30.1% of T2DM trials had poor population representativeness. Conclusion This research demonstrates the potential of using the EHR data to assess the clinical trials population representativeness, providing data-driven metrics to inform the selection and optimization of eligibility criteria.

Improving hematology/oncology clinical research recruitment via universal prescreening: The VA Connecticut (VACT) Cancer Center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Jenny Jing Xiang ◽  
Alicia Roy ◽  
Christine Summers ◽  
Monica Delvy ◽  
Jessica Lee O'Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Research Recruitment ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Study Enrollment

79 Background: Patient-trial matching is a critical step in clinical research recruitment that requires extensive review of clinical data and trial requirements. Prescreening, defined as identifying potentially eligible patients using select eligibility criteria, may streamline the process and increase study enrollment. We describe the real-world experience of implementing a standardized, universal clinical research prescreening protocol within a VA cancer center and its impact on research enrollment. Methods: An IRB approved prescreening protocol was implemented at the VACT Cancer Center in March 2017. All patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of cancer are identified through tumor boards, oncology consults, and clinic lists. Research coordinators perform chart review and manually enter patient demographics, cancer type and stage, and treatment history into a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database. All clinical trials and their eligibility criteria are also entered into REDCap and updated regularly. REDCap generates real time lists of potential research studies for each patient based on his/her recorded data. The primary oncologist is alerted to a patient’s potential eligibility prior to upcoming clinic visits and thus can plan to discuss clinical research enrollment as appropriate. Results: From March 2017 to December 2020, a total of 2548 unique patients were prescreened into REDCAP. The mean age was 71.5 years, 97.5% were male, and 15.5% were African American. 32.57 % patients had genitourinary cancer, 17.15% had lung cancer, and 46.15% were undergoing malignancy workup. 1412 patients were potentially eligible after prescreening and 556 patients were ultimately enrolled in studies. The number of patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials increased after the implementation of the prescreening protocol (35 in 2017, 64 in 2018, 78 in 2019, and 55 in 2020 despite the COVID19 pandemic). Biorepository study enrollment increased from 8 in 2019 to 15 in 2020. The prescreening protocol also enabled 200 patients to be enrolled onto a lung nodule liquid biopsy study from 2017 to 2019. Our prescreening process captured 98.57% of lung cancer patients entered into the cancer registry during the same time period. Conclusions: Universal prescreening streamlined research recruitment operations and was associated with yearly increases in clinical research enrollment at a VA cancer center. Our protocol identified most new lung cancer patients, suggesting that, at least for this malignancy, potential study patients were not missed. The protocol was integral in our program becoming the top accruing VA site for NCI’s National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) studies since 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document