Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community. METHODS: Published studies from 2010 to April 2020 were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid). Clinical trial protocols, reports, and a secondary analyses using AD were included. We excluded trial registrations and interventions other than drugs or vaccines to align with regulatory guidance. Data from the published literature on study characteristics, types of adaptations, statistical analysis, stopping boundaries, logistical challenges, operational considerations and ethical considerations were extracted and summarized herein. RESULTS: Out of 23,886 retrieved studies, 317 publications of adaptive trials, 267 (84.2%) trial reports, and 50 (15.8%) study protocols), were included. The most frequent disease was oncology (168/317, 53%). Most trials included only adult participants (265, 83.9%),16 trials (5.4%) were limited to only children and 28 (8.9%) were for both children and adults, 8 trials did not report the ages of the included populations. Some studies reported using more than one adaptation (there were 390 reported adaptations in 317 clinical trial reports). Most trials were early in drug development (phase I, II (276/317, 87%). Dose-finding designs were used in the highest proportion of the included trials (121/317, 38.2 %). Adaptive randomization (53/317, 16.7%), with drop-the-losers (or pick-the-winner) designs specifically reported in 29 trials (9.1%) and seamless phase 2-3 design was reported in 27 trials (8.5%). Continual reassessment methods (60/317, 18.9%) and group sequential design (47/317, 14.8%) were also reported. Approximately two-thirds of trials used frequentist statistical methods (203/309, 64%), while Bayesian methods were reported in 24% (75/309) of included trials. CONCLUSION: This review provides a comprehensive report of methodological features in adaptive clinical trials reported between 2010 and 2020. Adaptation details were not uniformly reported, creating limitations in interpretation and generalizability. Nevertheless, implementation of existing reporting guidelines on ADs and the development of novel educational strategies that address the scientific, operational challenges and ethical considerations can help in the clinical trial community to decide on when and how to implement ADs in clinical trials. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2934-7 .

Medical cannabis for children: Evidence and recommendations.

Interest in using cannabis products for a medical purpose in children under the age of 18 years is increasing. There are many medical cannabis products available that can include cannabidiol (CBD) or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or both. Despite many therapeutic claims, there are few rigorous studies to inform the dosing, safety, and efficacy of medical cannabis in paediatric clinical practice. This statement reviews the current evidence and provides recommendations for using medical cannabis in children. Longer-term (2-year) reports support the sustained tolerability and efficacy of cannabidiol therapy for patients with Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes. CBD-enriched cannabis extracts containing small amounts of THC have been evaluated in a small number of paediatric patients, and further research is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines. Given the widespread use of medical cannabis in Canada, paediatricians should be prepared to engage in open, ongoing discussions with families about its potential benefits and risks, and develop individualized plans that monitor efficacy, reduce harms, and mitigate drug-drug interactions.

Les données probantes et les recommandations sur le cannabis à des fins médicales chez les enfants.

L'intérêt envers l'utilisation des produits du cannabis à des fins médicales chez les enfants de moins de 18 ans augmente. De nombreux produits du cannabis à des fins médicales contiennent du cannabidiol, du delta-9-tétrahydrocannabinol ou ces deux produits. Malgré les nombreuses prétentions thérapeutiques, peu d'études rigoureuses guident la posologie, l'innocuité et l'efficacité du cannabis à des fins médicales en pédiatrie clinique. Le présent document de principes passe en revue les données probantes à jour et expose les recommandations sur l'utilisation du cannabis à des fins médicales chez les enfants. Les rapports à plus long terme (deux ans) souscrivent à la tolérabilité et à l'efficacité soutenues d'un traitement au cannabidiol chez les patients ayant le syndrome de Lennox-Gastaut ou le syndrome de Dravet. Les extraits de cannabis enrichis de cannabidiol qui renferment de petites quantités de delta-9-tétrahydrocannabinol ont été évalués auprès d'un petit nombre de patients d'âge pédiatrique, et d'autres recherches devront être réalisées pour éclairer les guides de pratique clinique. Étant donné l'utilisation répandue du cannabis à des fins médicales au Canada, les pédiatres devraient être prêts à participer à des échanges ouverts et continus avec les familles au sujet de ses avantages potentiels et de ses risques, ainsi qu'à préparer des plans individuels en vue d'en surveiller l'efficacité, de réduire les méfaits et de limiter les interactions médicamenteuses.

Removing barriers to accessing medical cannabis for paediatric patients.

Medical cannabis (MC) may offer therapeutic benefits for children with complex neurological conditions and chronic diseases. In Canada, parents, and caregivers frequently report encountering barriers when accessing MC for their children. These include negative preconceived notions about risks and benefits, challenges connecting with a knowledgeable healthcare provider (HCP), the high cost of MC products, and navigating MC product shortages. In this manuscript, we explore several of these barriers and provide recommendations to decision-makers to enable a family-centered and evidence-based approach to MC medicine and research for children.

Cannabinoids for symptom management in children with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of medical cannabis, little is known regarding the safety, efficacy, and dosing of cannabis products in children with cancer. The objective of this study was to systematically appraise the existing published literature for the use of cannabis products in children with cancer. METHODS: This systematic review, registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020187433), searched four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data on types of cannabis products, doses, formulations, frequencies, routes of administration, indications, and clinical and demographic details as well as reported efficacy outcomes were extracted. Data on cannabinoid-related adverse events were also summarized. RESULTS: Out of 34,611 identified citations, 19 unique studies with a total of 1927 participants with cancer were included: eight retrospective chart reviews, seven randomized controlled trials, two open-label studies, and two case reports. The included studies reported the use of various cannabis products for the management of symptoms. Cannabinoids were commonly used for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (11 of 19 [58%]). In controlled studies, somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and withdrawal due to adverse events were more commonly associated with the use of cannabinoids. Across all included studies, no serious cannabis-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is evidence to support the use of cannabis for symptom management, in children with cancer, there is a lack of rigorous evidence to inform the dosing, safety, and efficacy of cannabinoids. Because of the increasing interest in using cannabis, there is an urgent need for more research on medical cannabis in children with cancer.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Medical cannabis in schools: A qualitative study on the experiences of clinicians.

Objectives: Guidance is lacking for medical cannabis use in Canadian schools in both legislation and approach; the impact of ambiguous policy on patient care is unknown. A qualitative study was undertaken to explore the experiences of clinicians who care for school-aged children who take medical cannabis. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis performed using the Dedoose qualitative software ascribed meaning units and codes, which were further consolidated into categories and subcategories. Results: Thirteen physicians were interviewed virtually, representing seven provinces in Canada. The physicians provided care for between five and hundreds of school-aged children who took medical cannabis. The most common indications were refractory seizure disorders and autism. The interviews provided rich descriptions on perceptions of medical cannabis in schools, and in general. Five overarching categories were identified across both domains including variability, challenges (subcategories: lack of knowledge, stigma, lack of policy, and pragmatic challenges), potential solutions (subcategories: treat it like other medications, communication, education, and family support), positive experiences and improvements over time. Conclusion: In Canada, cannabis-based medicine use in schools still faces important challenges. Effective education, communication, family support and policy refinements that allow cannabis to be treated like other prescription medications are recommended to improve the status quo. These findings will guide the C4T Medical Cannabis in Schools Working Group's future priorities and initiatives.

Medical cannabis in schools: The experiences of caregivers.

Objectives: Implementing medical cannabis (MC) into a child's daily routine can be challenging and there is a lack of guidance for its therapeutic use in schools in Canada. Our objective was to learn about the experiences of caregivers of school-aged children who require MC. Methods: Qualitative description was used and caregivers were interviewed about MC in schools and in general. The transcripts were entered into Dedoose software for qualitative analysis and content analysis was performed. Sentences and statements were ascribed line by line into meaning units and labelled with codes, and organized according to categories and subcategories. Results: Twelve caregivers of school-aged children who take MC participated. The most common reasons for treatment were drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), autism, or other developmental disorders. Approximately half of the participants' children (n = 6) took MC during the school day and most (5/6) perceived their experiences to be positive or neutral but reported a lack of knowledge about MC. While data saturation was not reached regarding MC in schools, rich dialogues were garnered about MC in general and three categories were identified: challenges (subcategories stigma, finding an authorizer, cost, dosing, and supply); parents as advocates (subcategories required knowledge, attitudes, skills, and sources of information); and caregiver relief for positive outcomes. Conclusions: Caregivers demonstrate remarkable tenacity despite the many challenges associated with MC use. Education and practice change are needed to ensure that children using MC can benefit from or continue to experience its positive outcomes within the school environment and beyond.

c4c: Paediatric pharmacovigilance: Methodological considerations in research and development of medicines for children - A c4c expert group white paper.

Children frequently respond differently to therapies compared to adults. Differences also exist between paediatric age groups for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in both efficacy and safety. Paediatric pharmacovigilance requires an understanding of the unique aspects of children with regard to, for example, drug response, growth and development, clinical presentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), how they can be detected and population-specific factors (e.g., more frequent use of off-label/unlicensed drugs). In recognition of these challenges, a group of experts has been formed in the context of the conect4children (c4c) project to support paediatric drug development. This expert group collaborated to develop methodological considerations for paediatric drug safety and pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products which are described in this article. These considerations include practical points to consider for the development of the paediatric section of the risk management plan (RMP), safety in paediatric protocol development, safety data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they describe the specific details of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in children using, for example, spontaneous reports, electronic health care records, registries and record-linkage, as well as the use of paediatric pharmacoepidemiology studies for risk characterisation. Next the details of the assessment of benefit-risk and challenges related to medicinal product formulation in the context of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) are presented. Finally, practical issues in paediatric signal detection and evaluation are included. This paper provides practical points to consider for paediatric pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products for RMPs, protocol development, safety data collection and analysis and PIPs.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials.

Many drugs used in paediatric medicine are off-label. There is a rising call for the use of adaptive clinical trial designs (ADs) in responding to the need for safe and effective drugs given their potential to offer efficiency and cost-effective benefits compared with traditional clinical trials. ADs have a strong appeal in paediatric clinical trials given the small number of available participants, limited understanding of age-related variability and the desire to limit exposure to futile or unsafe interventions. Although the ethical value of adaptive trials has increasingly come under scrutiny, there is a paucity of literature on the ethical dilemmas that may be associated with paediatric adaptive designs (PADs). This paper highlights some of these ethical concerns around safety, scientific/social value and caregiver/guardian comprehension of the trial design. Against this background, the paper develops a non-static conceptual lens for understanding PADs. It shows that ADs are epistemically open and reduce some of the knowledge-associated uncertainties inherent in clinical trials as well as fast-track the time to draw conclusions about the value of evaluated drugs/treatments. On this note, the authors argue that PADs are ethically justifiable given they (1) have multiple layers of safety, exposing enrolled children to lesser potential risks, (2) create social/scientific value generally and for paediatric populations in particular, (3) specifically foster the flourishing of paediatric populations and (4) can significantly improve paediatric trial efficiency when properly designed and implemented. However, because PADs are relatively new and their regulatory, ethical and logistical characteristics are yet to be clarified in some jurisdictions, the cooperation of various public and private stakeholders is required to ensure that the interests of children, their caregivers and parents/guardians are best served while exposing paediatric research subjects to the most minimal of risks when they are enrolled in paediatric trials that use ADs.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Medical cannabis in pediatric oncology: a survey of patients and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: There are minimal data regarding the safety and efficacy of cannabis used as an anti-cancer agent or for symptom management in pediatric oncology. We aimed to characterize the prevalence and factors associated with the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer and management of cancer-related symptoms in children during or after cancer treatment. METHODS: An anonymous 40 question paper survey was offered to patients/caregivers of children with cancer attending a pediatric oncology clinic in a provincially mandated cancer agency between October 2019 and March 2020. RESULTS: There were 64 respondents included in the analysis. Fourteen participants (N=14/64; 22%) reported use of cannabis, of which half used cannabis for either cancer treatment or symptom management, or both. Leukemia (n=9/14; 64%) was the most frequent diagnosis in children whose caregivers reported using cannabis and the majority of them were still receiving active cancer treatment (N= 5/9; 56%). All of the respondents using cannabis (14/14, 100%) experienced symptom improvement. Most of the caregivers procured cannabis from their friends (N=5/14; 36%), and oil was the most commonly used formulation (N=12/14; 86%). Cannabis-related information was received from another parent (N=4/14; 29%) or from a doctor (N=4/14; 29%). The reported monthly expenditure on cannabis varied widely from less than $50 CAD (N=4/14; 29%) to more than $500 CAD (N=3/14; 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that cannabis, mostly oil products, was used by one-fifth of children with cancer during or after the completion of cancer treatment. These findings require validation in a larger nationwide survey.

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.

Post-exposure prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): study protocol for a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure to the virus, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-emptive therapy (PET) for COVID-19. METHODS: We will conduct two nested multicentre international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) PEP of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) PET for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 showing symptoms for less than four days. We will recruit 1,500 patients each for the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive five days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow-up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States. DISCUSSION: These complementary randomized-controlled trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce virus transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic. TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); registered 16 March, 2020.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère du coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) est apparu en décembre 2019, provoquant la pandémie de la COVID-19. À l'heure actuelle, il n'existe aucun traitement fondé sur des données probantes permettant de prévenir la COVID-19 suite à une exposition au virus ou de prévenir l'aggravation des symptômes suite à une infection confirmée. Nous décrivons la conception d'une étude clinique examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine en tant que prophylaxie post-exposition (PPE) et de traitement préventif (TP) pour la COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous réaliserons deux études cliniques imbriquées contrôlées par placebo, randomisées, à double insu, internationales et multicentriques examinant l'utilisation d'hydroxychloroquine pour : 1) la prophylaxie post-exposition des contacts asymptomatiques dans un même foyer ou les travailleurs de la santé exposés à la COVID-19 au cours des quatre derniers jours, et 2) le traitement préventif des patients symptomatiques en ambulatoire atteints de COVID-19 et présentant des symptômes pour une durée totale de moins de quatre jours. Nous recruterons 1500 patients pour chaque bras de l'étude (PPE et TP). Les participants seront randomisés à un ratio de 1 : 1 pour recevoir cinq jours d'hydroxychloroquine ou de placebo. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude PPE sera l'incidence de COVID-19 symptomatique. Le critère d'évaluation principal de l'étude TP consistera en une échelle ordinale de la gravité de la maladie (pas d'hospitalisation, hospitalisation sans soins intensifs, hospitalisation avec soins intensifs, ou décès). La sélection des participants, le consentement éclairé et le suivi se feront exclusivement en ligne après avoir obtenu les consentements réglementaires et des comités d'éthique de la recherche appropriés au Canada et aux États-Unis. DISCUSSION: Ces études randomisées contrôlées complémentaires sont conçues de façon innovatrice et disposent de la puissance nécessaire pour répondre rapidement aux questions urgentes quant à l'efficacité de l'hydroxychloroquine pour réduire la transmission et la gravité de la maladie de la COVID-19 pendant une pandémie. Le suivi des participants ne sera pas réalisé en personne afin de faciliter les stratégies de distanciation sociale et de réduire le risque d'exposition du personnel de l'étude. Des approches innovatrices d'études sont nécessaires afin d'évaluer rapidement les options thérapeutiques pour mitiger l'impact global de cette pandémie. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); enregistrées le 16 mars 2020.

Systematic mixed-study review of nonpharmacological management of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal abstinence syndrome is a multisystem disorder resulting from exposure to maternal addictive substance use in pregnancy. Withdrawal is characterized by neonatal tremors, feeding difficulties, and sleep disruption. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the nonpharmacological management of infants at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome after prenatal exposure. METHODS: A systematic mixed-study review was conducted. A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed for relevant articles published between January 2007 and June 2018. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and thematic analysis undertaken. The findings were synthesized as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review, of which nine were quality improvement initiatives and five explored complementary therapies. The most common components of nonpharmacological management were consolation therapy and rooming-in of mother and baby. Implementation strategies incorporated family integrated care and practitioner training in the evaluation of neonatal withdrawal. When nonpharmacological management was applied, there was a reduction in the need for pharmacotherapy and a shorter hospital stay for newborns. Potential barriers to effective management included unreliable assessment tools, judgmental practitioner attitudes, and limited breastfeeding promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Providing and optimizing nonpharmacological management for the infant at risk of neonatal abstinence syndrome improves outcomes by reducing their length of hospital stay and the need for pharmacotherapy.

Reporting of interventions and "standard of care" control arms in pediatric clinical trials: a quantitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: In pediatric medicine, the usual treatment received by children ("standard of care") varies across centers. Evaluations of new treatments often compare to the existing "standard of care" to determine if a treatment is more effective, has a better safety profile, or costs less. The objective of our study was to evaluate intervention and "standard of care" control arms reported in published pediatric clinical trials. METHODS: Pediatric clinical trials, published in 2014, reporting the use of a "standard of care" control arm were included. Duplicate assessment of reporting completeness was done using the 12-item TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for both the "standard of care" control arms and intervention arms within the same published study. RESULTS: Following screening, 214 pediatric trials in diverse therapeutic areas were included. Several different terms were used to describe "standard of care." There was a significant difference between the mean reported TIDieR checklist items of "standard of care" control arms (5.81 (SD 2.13) and intervention arms (8.45 (SD 1.39, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of intervention and "standard of care" control arms in pediatric clinical trials should be improved as current "standard of care" reporting deficiencies limit reproducibility of research and may ultimately contribute to research waste.

Useful pharmacodynamic endpoints in children: selection, measurement, and next steps.

Pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints are essential for establishing the benefit-to-risk ratio for therapeutic interventions in children and neonates. This article discusses the selection of an appropriate measure of response, the PD endpoint, which is a critical methodological step in designing pediatric efficacy and safety studies. We provide an overview of existing guidance on the choice of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical research. We identified several considerations relevant to the selection and measurement of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical trials, including the use of biomarkers, modeling, compliance, scoring systems, and validated measurement tools. To be useful, PD endpoints in children need to be clinically relevant, responsive to both treatment and/or disease progression, reproducible, and reliable. In most pediatric disease areas, this requires significant validation efforts. We propose a minimal set of criteria for useful PD endpoint selection and measurement. We conclude that, given the current heterogeneity of pediatric PD endpoint definitions and measurements, both across and within defined disease areas, there is an acute need for internationally agreed, validated, and condition-specific pediatric PD endpoints that consider the needs of all stakeholders, including healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, and families.

Response biomarkers in neonatal intervention studies.

BackgroundUp to 90% of all drugs used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have not been clinically tested for safety and efficacy. To promote drug development for neonates, the pharmaceutical industry is moving toward rigorous testing, necessitating the need to development, and validating biomarkers in neonates to predict their response. The objective of this review is to evaluate the quality of the response biomarker reporting in neonatal clinical trials.MethodsA validated literature search strategy was applied. Prospective neonatal intervention studies reporting response biomarkers published in 2014 were included. The data were extracted independently and in duplicate using a data-extraction form.ResultsFollowing the full-text review, 167 published prospective neonatal trials were included; 35% (59/167) reported the use of response biomarkers. In these 59 trials, we identified 275 biomarkers used to measure the response (pharmacodynamics and safety) reported as primary or secondary outcomes. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were the most commonly reported. Measurement and instrumentation data were often not provided.ConclusionWe identified a huge variability in the selection, measurement, and reporting of neonatal response biomarkers in prospective intervention studies. Reporting initiatives are needed to reduce research waste and improve the reproducibility of biomarker use in neonatal intervention studies.