Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments.

Importance: Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease. Objective: To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs. Exposures: Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores. Results: A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03374800.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 µg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Early Treatment with Fluvoxamine among Patients with COVID-19: A Cost-Consequence Model.

To date, two published randomized trials have indicated a clinical benefit of early treatment with fluvoxamine versus placebo for adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Using the results of the largest of these trials, the TOGETHER trial, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to assess the health system benefits of preventing progression to severe COVID-19 in outpatient populations in the United States. A decision-analytic model in the form of a decision tree was constructed to evaluate two treatment strategies for high-risk patients with confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in the primary analysis: treatment with a 10-day course of fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily) and current standard-of-care. A secondary analysis comparing a 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also conducted. We used a time horizon of 28 days. Reported outcomes included cost-savings and hospitalization days avoided. The results of our analysis indicated that administration of fluvoxamine to symptomatic outpatients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 was substantially cost-saving, in the amount of $232 per eligible patient and prevented an average of 0.15 hospital days per patient treated, compared with standard of care. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also shown to be cost-saving despite its higher acquisition cost and provided savings to the healthcare system of $625 per patient treated. These findings suggest that fluvoxamine is likely to be a cost-effective addition to frontline COVID-19 mitigation strategies in many settings, particularly where access to nirmaltrevir-ritonavir or monoclonal antibodies is limited.

Toward a New Paradigm of North-South and South-South Partnerships for Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and Other Outbreaks.

COVID-19 underscores the need to reimagine North-South partnerships and redefine best practices for building public health and research capacity to address emergent health threats and pandemic preparedness in low- and-middle income countries (LMICs). Historically, outbreak and emergency responses have failed to ensure that the Global South has the autonomy and capacity to respond to public health threats in a timely and equitable manner. The COVID-19 response, however, has demonstrated that innovations and solutions in the Global South can not only fill resource and capacity gaps in LMICs but can also provide solutions to challenges globally. These innovations offer valuable lessons about strengthening local manufacturing capacity to produce essential diagnostic, treatment, and prevention tools; implementing high-quality research studies; expanding laboratory and research capacity; and promoting effective cooperation and governance. We discuss specific examples of capacity-building from Rwanda, South Africa, and Senegal. To fulfill promises made to the Global South during the COVID-19 pandemic, restore and resume health service delivery, and effectively prevent and respond to the next health threat, we need to prioritize equitable access to local manufacturing of basic health tools while building health systems capacities in the Global South.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 µg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Resilient Clinical Trial Infrastructure in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the TOGETHER Randomized Platform Clinical Trial.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research groups across the world developed trial protocols to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. Despite this initial enthusiasm, only a small portion of these protocols were implemented. Of those implemented, a fraction successfully recruited their target sample size to analyze and disseminate findings. More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 pandemic, only a few clinical trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19 have generated new evidence. Productive randomized platform clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 treatments may attribute their success to intentional investments in developing resilient clinical trial infrastructures. Health system resiliency discourse provides a conceptual framework for characterizing attributes for withstanding shocks. This framework may also be useful for contextualizing the attributes of productive clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapies. We characterize the successful attributes and lessons learned in developing the TOGETHER Trial infrastructure using a health system resiliency framework. This framework may be considered by clinical trialists aiming to build resilient trial infrastructures capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to global health threats.

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52-0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53-0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21-0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36-1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01-0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital. FUNDING: FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. METHODS: The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo. FINDINGS: The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88-1.11) or other secondary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.

Three week compared to seven week run-in period length and the assessment of pre-randomization adherence: A study within a trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To examine how measuring adherence at 3 weeks by self-report and pill counts compares to measurements at 7 weeks in a pre-randomization run-in period. METHODS: Study within a trial of an international parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares spironolactone to placebo. Adults receiving dialysis enter an 8-week active run-in period with spironolactone. Adherence was assessed by both self-report and pill counts in a subgroup of participants at both 3 weeks and 7 weeks. RESULTS: 332 participants entered the run-in period of which 166 had complete data. By self-report, 146/166 (94.0%) and 153/166 (92.2%) had at least 80% adherence at 3 and 7 weeks respectively (kappa = 0.27 (95% C.I. 0.16 to 0.38). By pill counts, the mean (SD) adherence was 96.5% (16.1%) and 92.4% (18.2%) at 3 and 7 weeks respectively (r = 0.32) with a mean (SD) difference of 3.1% (17.8%) and a 95% limit of agreement from -31.7% to +37.9%. The proportion of adherent participants by self-report and pill counts at 3 weeks agreed in 87.4% of participants (McNemar's p-value 0.58, kappa 0.11, p = 0.02) and at 7 weeks agreed in 92.2% (McNemar's p-value 0.82, kappa 0.47, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Three and seven-week run-in periods and both self-reported and pill count assessments performed similarly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03020303.

Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Results: Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health.

COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding.

Accelerating Clinical Evaluation of Repurposed Combination Therapies for COVID-19.

As the global COVID-19 pandemic continues, unabated and clinical trials demonstrate limited effective pharmaceutical interventions, there is a pressing need to accelerate treatment evaluations. Among options for accelerated development is the evaluation of drug combinations in the absence of prior monotherapy data. This approach is appealing for a number of reasons. First, combining two or more drugs with related or complementary therapeutic effects permits a multipronged approach addressing the variable pathways of the disease. Second, if an individual component of a combination offers a therapeutic effect, then in the absence of antagonism, a trial of combination therapy should still detect individual efficacy. Third, this strategy is time saving. Rather than taking a stepwise approach to evaluating monotherapies, this strategy begins with testing all relevant therapeutic options. Finally, given the severity of the current pandemic and the absence of treatment options, the likelihood of detecting a treatment effect with combination therapy maintains scientific enthusiasm for evaluating repurposed treatments. Antiviral combination selection can be facilitated by insights regarding SARS-CoV-2 pathophysiology and cell cycle dynamics, supported by infectious disease and clinical pharmacology expert advice. We describe a clinical evaluation strategy using adaptive combination platform trials to rapidly test combination therapies to treat COVID-19.

Incorporating evidence-based principles in medical training. Sharing experience with McMaster.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: This workshop was the second activity of the collaboration between the McMaster University, Botucatu Medical School- São Paulo State University (UNESP) and Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais - PUC Minas that took place in Botucatu, Brazil between March 27th to 28th 2017. Aims: Its prime purpose was to share with the Brazilian professors and students how to include evidence-based concepts in their daily teaching activities. Methods: The participants were involved and guided in discussions on how to explore evidence-based techniques to improve their understanding and their willingness to include new teaching strategies in the future. Results: A final evaluation survey completed by the participants indicated that they were highly satisfied with the workshop experience and that they gained an enhancement of knowledge about evidence-based medicine. Conclusion: Participants had an increase in their self-confidence to implementevidence-based concepts in their future lecture programs.