Sensitivity and Specificity of Using GPT-3.5 Turbo Models for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are performed manually despite the exponential growth of scientific literature. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of GPT-3.5 Turbo, from OpenAI, as a single reviewer, for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Diagnostic test accuracy study. SETTING: Unannotated bibliographic databases from 5 systematic reviews representing 22 665 citations. PARTICIPANTS: None. MEASUREMENTS: A generic prompt framework to instruct GPT to perform title and abstract screening was designed. The output of the model was compared with decisions from authors under 2 rules. The first rule balanced sensitivity and specificity, for example, to act as a second reviewer. The second rule optimized sensitivity, for example, to reduce the number of citations to be manually screened. RESULTS: Under the balanced rule, sensitivities ranged from 81.1% to 96.5% and specificities ranged from 25.8% to 80.4%. Across all reviews, GPT identified 7 of 708 citations (1%) missed by humans that should have been included after full-text screening at the cost of 10 279 of 22 665 false-positive recommendations (45.3%) that would require reconciliation during the screening process. Under the sensitive rule, sensitivities ranged from 94.6% to 99.8% and specificities ranged from 2.2% to 46.6%. Limiting manual screening to citations not ruled out by GPT could reduce the number of citations to screen from 127 of 6334 (2%) to 1851 of 4077 (45.4%), at the cost of missing from 0 to 1 of 26 citations (3.8%) at the full-text level. LIMITATIONS: Time needed to fine-tune prompt. Retrospective nature of the study, convenient sample of 5 systematic reviews, and GPT performance sensitive to prompt development and time. CONCLUSION: The GPT-3.5 Turbo model may be used as a second reviewer for title and abstract screening, at the cost of additional work to reconcile added false positives. It also showed potential to reduce the number of citations before screening by humans, at the cost of missing some citations at the full-text level. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF. METHODS: The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting. RESULTS: (i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members. CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

Risk factors for thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia in a general ward and requiring treatment with oxygen.

PURPOSE: To assess risk factors for arterial and venous thromboses (AVT) in patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen therapy. METHODS: Our study was based on three randomized studies conducted as part of the CORIMUNO-19 platform in France between 27 March and 26 April 2020. Adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring at least 3 l/min of oxygen but not ventilation were randomized to receive standard care alone or standard care plus biologics. Patients were followed up for 3 months, and adverse events were documented. Risk factor for AVT and bleeding was identified by analyzing clinical, laboratory, and treatment data at baseline among the 315 patients with complete datasets. A Fine and Gray model was used to take account of competing events. RESULTS: During the 3-month follow-up period, 39 AVT occurred in 38 (10%) of the 388 patients: 26 deep vein thromboses and/or pulmonary embolisms in 25 (6%) patients, and 14 arterial thrombotic events in 13 (3%) patients. A history of diabetes at inclusion [sHR (95% CI) = 2.65 (1.19-5.91), P = .017] and the C-reactive protein (CRP) level (sHR = 1 [1-1.01], P = .049) were significantly associated with an elevated risk of thrombosis. Obesity was not associated with a higher risk of thrombosis (sHR = 1.01 [0.4-2.57], P = .98). The CRP level and diabetes were not risk factors for hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the epidemic, diabetes (but not obesity) and a high CRP level were risk factors for AVT. The use of higher doses of anticoagulant in these high-risk patients could be considered.

Can efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of rituximab in RA be extrapolated? Insights from 1984 patients from the AIR-PR Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the efficacy and safety data from drug-registration trials can be extrapolated to real-life RA patients receiving RTX. METHODS: The AIR-PR registry is a French multicentre, prospective cohort of RA patients treated with RTX in a real-life setting. We compared treatment responses at 12 months and serious AEs between eligible and non-eligible patients, by retrieving the eligibility criteria of the three rituximab-registration trials. We determined critical eligibility criteria and modelled the benefit-risk ratio according to the number of fulfilled critical eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Among 1984 RA patients, only 9-12% fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Non-eligible patients had less EULAR response at 12 months (40.3% vs 46.9%, p= 0.044). Critical inclusion criteria included SJC ≥ 4, TJC ≥ 4, CRP ≥ 15 mg/l, and RF positivity. Critical exclusion criteria were age >80 years, RA-associated systemic diseases, ACR functional class IV, other DMARD than methotrexate, and prednisone > 10 mg/day. Only 20.8% fulfilled those critical eligibility criteria. During the first year, serious AEs occurred for 182 (9.2%) patients, (70.3% serious infections) and patients with ≥1 critical exclusion criterion were at higher risk (HR 3.03; 95%CI 2.25-4.06; for ≥ 3 criteria vs 0). The incremental risk-benefit ratio decreased with the number of unmet critical inclusion criteria and of fulfilled exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Few real-life RA patients were eligible for the drug-registration trials. Non-eligible patients had lower chance of response, and higher risk of serious AEs. Efficacy and safety data obtained from those trials may not be generalizable to RA patients receiving RTX in real-world clinical practice.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Development and Validation of the Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) Symptom and Impact Tools: A Set of Patient-Reported Instruments Constructed From Patients' Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: To develop and validate patient-reported instruments, based on patients' lived experiences, for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long coronavirus disease (covid). METHODS: The long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) were constructed from the answers to a survey with open-ended questions to 492 patients with long COVID. Validation of the tools involved adult patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptoms extending over 3 weeks after onset. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relations of the ST and IT scores with health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), function (PCFS, post-COVID functional scale), and perceived health (MYMOP2, Measure yourself medical outcome profile 2). Reliability was determined by a test-retest. The "patient acceptable symptomatic state" (PASS) was determined by the percentile method. RESULTS: Validation involved 1022 participants (55% with confirmed COVID-19, 79% female, and 12.5% hospitalized for COVID-19). The long COVID ST and IT scores were strongly correlated with the EQ-5D-5L (rs = -0.45 and rs = -0.59, respectively), the PCFS (rs = -0.39 and rs = -0.55), and the MYMOP2 (rs = -0.40 and rs = -0.59). Reproducibility was excellent with an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval .80 to .86) for the ST score and 0.84 (.80 to .87) for the IT score. In total, 793 (77.5%) patients reported an unacceptable symptomatic state, thereby setting the PASS for the long covid IT score at 30 (28 to 33). CONCLUSIONS: The long covid ST and IT tools, constructed from patients' lived experiences, provide the first validated and reliable instruments for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid.

Neonatal Listeriosis Presentation and Outcome: A Prospective Study of 189 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Listeriosis is caused by the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. It can present as a maternal-neonatal infection. We implemented a nationwide prospective cohort and analyzed the features of neonatal listeriosis. METHODS: We studied all neonates born alive from mothers with microbiologically proven maternal-neonatal listeriosis enrolled from November 2009 to December 2017. We analyzed presentation, neonatal outcome at discharge, and predictors of severe presentation and outcome. RESULTS: We studied 189 infants; 133 of 189 (70%) had abnormal clinical status at birth, including acute respiratory distress in 106 of 189 (56%). There were 132 of 189 (70%) infants who developed early-onset listeriosis and 12 of 189 (6%) who developed late-onset listeriosis; all presented with acute meningitis. There were 17 of 189 (9%) infants who had major adverse outcomes: 3%, (5 of 189) death; 6% (12 of 189), severe brain injury; and 2% (3 of 189), severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Fifteen of 17 infants were born <34 weeks of gestation (P < .0001 vs infants born ≥34 weeks of gestation). Maternal antimicrobial treatment ≥1 day before delivery was associated with a significant decrease in presentation severity for the infant, resulting in significantly fewer inotropic drugs, fluid resuscitation, and mechanical ventilation requirement (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.51; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal maternal antimicrobial treatment is associated with reduced neonatal listeriosis severity, justifying the prescription of preemptive maternal antimicrobial therapy when maternal-fetal listeriosis is suspected. Neonatal outcome is better than reported earlier, and its major determinant is gestational age at birth. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01520597.

Important Issues to Severe Trauma Survivors: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify issues that are important to severe trauma survivors up to 3 years after the trauma. BACKGROUND: Severe trauma is the first cause of disability-adjusted life years worldwide, yet most attention has focused on acute care and the impact on long-term health is poorly evaluated. METHOD: We conducted a large-scale qualitative study based on semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative research methods involve the systematic collection, organization, and interpretation of conversations or textual data with patients to explore the meaning of a phenomenon experienced by individuals themselves. We randomly selected severe trauma survivors (abbreviated injury score ≥3 in at least 1 body region) who were receiving care in 6 urban academic level-I trauma centers in France between March 2015 and March 2018. We conducted double independent thematic analysis. Issues reported by patients were grouped into overarching domains by a panel of 5 experts in trauma care. Point of data saturation was estimated with a mathematical model. RESULTS: We included 340 participants from 3 months to 3 years after the trauma [median age: 41 years (Q1-Q3 24-54), median injury severity score: 17 (Q1-Q3 11-22)]. We identified 97 common issues that we grouped into 5 overarching domains: body and neurological issues (29 issues elicited by 277 participants), biographical disruption (23 issues, 210 participants), psychological and personality issues (21 issues, 147 participants), burden of treatment (14 issues, 145 participants), and altered relationships (10 issues, 87 participants). Time elapsed because the trauma, injury location, or in-hospital trauma severity did not affect the distribution of these domains across participants' answers. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study explored trauma survivors' experiences of the long-term effect of their injury and allowed for identifying a set of issues that they consider important, including dimensions that seem overlooked in trauma research. Our findings confirm that trauma is a chronic medical condition that demands new approaches to post-discharge and long-term care.

Availability of Results of Trials Studying Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma over the Past 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal cancer with few therapeutic options. Availability of results is a crucial step in interventional research. Our aim was to evaluate results availability for trials in patients with PDAC and explore associated factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study and searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for trials evaluating PDAC management with a primary completion date between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2020. Then, we searched for results submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov and/or published. Our primary outcome was the proportion of PDAC trials with available results: submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov (either publicly available or undergoing quality control check) and/or published in a full-text article. The association of predefined trial characteristics with results availability was assessed. RESULTS: We identified 551 trials of which 386 (70%) had available results. The cumulative percentage of trials with available results was 21% (95% CI, 18-25%) at 12 months after the primary completion date, 44% (95% CI, 30-48%) at 24 months and 57% (95% CI, 53-61%) at 36 months. Applicable clinical trials, required to comply with the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801 and its final rule on reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, were more likely to have available results over time (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.72-2.63], P < .001). Industry-funded, small sample size, and terminated trials were less likely to have available results. Other trial characteristics showed no association with results availability. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight a waste in interventional research studying PDAC.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications. RESULTS: We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

Effect of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: two randomised controlled trials of the CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine whether anti-interleukin (IL)-6 receptors improve outcomes of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. We report on two cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, Bayesian randomised controlled clinical trials. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either usual care (UC) or UC+tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg·kg-1 (TOCI-2 trial) or UC or UC+sarilumab (SARI) 200 mg (SARI-2 trial), both intravenously on day 1 and, if clinically indicated, on day 3. RESULTS: Between 31 March and 20 April 2020, 97 patients were randomised in the TOCI-2 trial, to receive UC (n=46) or UC+TCZ (n=51). At day 14, numbers of patients who did not need noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) and were alive with TCZ or UC were similar (47% versus 42%; median posterior hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 90% credible interval (CrI) 0.71-2.04), with a posterior probability of HR >1 of 71.4%. Between 27 March and 4 April 2020, 91 patients were randomised in the SARI-2 trial, to receive UC (n=41) or UC+SARI (n=50). At day 14, numbers of patients who did not need NIV or MV and were alive with SARI or UC were similar (38% versus 33%; median posterior HR 1.05, 90% CrI 0.55-2.07), with a posterior probability of HR >1 of 54.9%. Overall, the risk of death up to day 90 was: UC+TCZ 24% versus UC 30% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30-1.49) and UC+SARI 29% versus UC 39% (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.58). Both TCZ and SARI increased serious infectious events. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, anti-IL-6 receptors did not significantly increase the number of patients alive without any NIV or MV by day 14.

Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC. METHODS: First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes. RESULTS: We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Patients' Perspectives on Transforming Clinical Trial Participation: Large Online Vignette-based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patients' participation is crucial to the success of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, recruiting and retaining patients in trials remain a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patients' preferences for the organization of RCTs (visits on- site or remotely) and evaluate the potential impact of fulfilling preferences on their willingness to participate in a clinical trial. METHODS: This was a vignette-based survey. Vignettes were case scenarios of real clinical trials assessing pharmacological treatments. These RCTs evaluated 6 prevalent chronic diseases (ie, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and endometriosis). Each vignette described (1) the RCT and characteristics of the treatment tested (ie, doses, administration routes) and (2) the trial procedures and different options (on-site or remotely) for how the trial was organized for informed consent, follow-up visits, and communication of results when the trial was completed. We recruited 628 participants from ComPaRe (www.compare.aphp.fr), a French e-cohort of patients with chronic diseases. The outcomes were the participants' preferences for the way the trial was organized (on-site or remotely) and their willingness to participate in the trial. RESULTS: Of the 628 participants who answered the vignettes, 491 (78.2%) were female (median age 55 years), with different chronic diseases ranging from endometriosis in 59 of 491 (12%) patients to asthma in 133 of 628 (21.2%) patients. In addition, 38 (6.1%) participants wanted to provide informed consent and all trial visits on-site, 176 (28%) wished to participate in the trial entirely remotely, and 414 (65.9%) wanted to combine remote-based and hospital-based visits. Considering the trial as a whole, when the trial was organized in a way that the patients preferred, the median (Q1-Q3) likelihood of participation in the trial was 90% (80-100) versus 60% (30-80) if the trial followed the patients' nonpreferred model. Furthermore, 256 (40.8%) patients responded to open-ended questions expressing their experience with trial participation and visits to the hospital and providing suggestions for improvement. The patients emphasized the need to personalize the way a trial is organized according to each patient's needs and conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant diversity in the participants' preferences. Most participants preferred hybrid organization involving both on-site and remote visits. Participants were more likely to participate in a trial organized according to their preferences.

Acceptability of and Willingness to Take Digital Pills by Patients, the Public, and Health Care Professionals: Qualitative Content Analysis of a Large Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: Digital pills are pills combined with a sensor, which sends a signal to a patch connected to a smartphone when the pills are ingested. Health care professionals can access patient data from digital pills online via their own interface, thus allowing them to check whether a patient took the drug. Digital pills were developed for the stated goal of improving treatment adherence. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first digital pills in November 2017, but the manufacturer withdrew its application to the European Medicines Agency in July 2020 because of insufficient evaluation. OBJECTIVE: As recommended for the evaluation of health technologies, this study assesses the prospective acceptability of and willingness to take digital pills among patients, the public, and health care professionals. METHODS: Participants were patients who were receiving long-term treatment for a chronic condition, public participants (both groups recruited from a representative sample), and health care professionals. Participants answered 5 open-ended questions regarding the acceptability of digital pills and 1 close-ended question regarding the willingness to take digital pills, which were developed in a preliminary qualitative study. We explored the 5 theoretical dimensions of acceptability by performing an abductive qualitative content analysis of all free-text responses. We assessed data saturation with mathematical models. We fitted a multivariate logistic regression model to identify the sociodemographic and health characteristics associated with the willingness to take digital pills. RESULTS: Between January 29, 2020, and April 18, 2020, 767 patients, 1238 public participants, and 246 health care professionals provided 11,451 free-text responses. We identified 98 codes related to the acceptability of digital pills: 29 codes on perceived clinical effectiveness (eg, sensor safety cited by 66/2251 participants, 29.5%), 6 on perceived burden (eg, increased doctors' workload, 164/2251 participants, 7.3%), 25 on perceived ethicality (eg, policing, 345/2251 participants, 15.3%), 30 codes on perceived opportunity (eg, exclusively negative perception, 690/2251 participants, 30.7%), and 8 on affective attitude (eg, anger, 541/2251, 24%). Overall, 271/767 (35.3%) patients, 376/1238 (30.4%) public participants, and 39/246 (15.8%) health care professionals reported willingness to take digital pills. This willingness was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.62-2.43) and current use of a connected device to record health settings (with a dose-response relationship). CONCLUSIONS: The prospective acceptability of and willingness to take digital pills were limited by clinical and ethical concerns both at the individual and societal level. Our results suggest that digital pills should not be considered a mere change in the form of drug administration but a complex intervention requiring specific evaluation before extended use in clinical routine practice as well as an ethical and legal framework to ensure safe and ethical collection and use of health data through a patient-centered approach.

Association between prophylactic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and overall survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy-analysis of registry data.

AIMS: To estimate the effect of prophylactic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) on survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the data from the French multicentre DMD Heart Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03443115). We estimated the association between the prophylactic prescription of ACEi and event-free survival in 668 patients aged 8 to 13 years, with normal left ventricular function, using (i) a Cox model with intervention as a time-dependent covariate, (ii) a propensity-based analysis comparing ACEi treatment vs. no treatment, and (iii) a set of sensitivity analyses. The study outcomes were overall survival and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) or acute respiratory failure. Among the 668 patients included in the DMD Heart Registry, 576 (mean age 6.1 ± 2.8 years) were eligible for this study, of whom 390 were treated with ACEi prophylactically. Death occurred in 53 patients (13.5%) who were and 60 patients (32.3%) who were not treated prophylactically with ACEi, respectively. In a Cox model with intervention as a time-dependent variable, the hazard ratio (HR) associated with ACEi treatment was 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.72] and 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.17) for overall mortality after adjustment for baseline variables. In the propensity-based analysis, 278 patients were included in the treatment group and 834 in the control group, with 18.5% and 30.4% 12-year estimated probability of death, respectively. ACEi were associated with a lower risk of death (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.92) and hospitalization for HF (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04-0.62). All other sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic ACEi treatment in DMD was associated with a significantly higher overall survival and lower rates of hospitalization for HF.

Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the completeness of reporting, research transparency practices, and risk of selection and immortal bias in observational studies using routinely collected data for comparative effectiveness research. METHOD: We performed a meta-research study by searching PubMed for comparative effectiveness observational studies evaluating therapeutic interventions using routinely collected data published in high impact factor journals from 01/06/2018 to 30/06/2020. We assessed the reporting of the study design (i.e., eligibility, treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up). The risk of selection bias and immortal time bias was determined by assessing if the time of eligibility, the treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up were synchronized to mimic the randomization following the target trial emulation framework. RESULT: Seventy-seven articles were identified. Most studies evaluated pharmacological treatments (69%) with a median sample size of 24,000 individuals. In total, 20% of articles inadequately reported essential information of the study design. One-third of the articles (n = 25, 33%) raised some concerns because of unclear reporting (n = 6, 8%) or were at high risk of selection bias and/or immortal time bias (n = 19, 25%). Only five articles (25%) described a solution to mitigate these biases. Six articles (31%) discussed these biases in the limitations section. CONCLUSION: Reporting of essential information of study design in observational studies remained suboptimal. Selection bias and immortal time bias were common methodological issues that researchers and physicians should be aware of when interpreting the results of observational studies using routinely collected data.

Baseline Characteristics of a National French E-Cohort of Hidradenitis Suppurativa in ComPaRe and Comparison with Other Large Hidradenitis Suppurativa Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition substantially impacting patients' quality of life; the pathogenesis remains unclear, and treatment is complex and not yet standardized. Observational data are increasingly being used to evaluate therapeutics in "real-life" interventions, and the development of e-cohorts is offering new tools for epidemiological studies at the population level. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and treatment history of HS participants in the Community of Patients for Research (ComPaRe) cohort and to compare these to other cohorts. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the baseline data of HS participants in ComPaRe, an e-cohort of patients with chronic diseases. Data were collected using patient-reported questionnaires about clinical-dem-ographic aspects, quality of life, and treatment history. RESULTS: A total of 396 participants (339 females, 57 males) were included (mean age 38 years); 83 (21%) had a family history of HS, 227 (57.3%) were current smokers, and 241 (60.9%) were overweight or obese. Most of the participants declared a Hurley stage II (n = 263, 66.4%) or III (n = 76, 20.3%). The breast was more frequently affected in women than men (37.5 vs. 5.3%, p < 0.0001), whereas the dorsal region was more frequently affected in men (39.5 vs. 10.9%, p < 0.0001). Increased disease stage was associated with obesity (25.9 vs. 33.8 vs. 51.3%, p = 0.02) and some HS localizations (genital [p < 0.005], pubis [p < 0.007], gluteal fold [p = 0.02], and groin [p < 0.0001]). The most frequently prescribed treatments were oral antibiotics (n = 362, 91.4%), especially amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and cyclins. Less than 10% of participants received biologics. Most of these results were consistent with previously published cohorts. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of participants by such a web platform can be a faster way to get relevant scientific data for a wide variety of patients that could be used for epidemiological studies and to evaluate therapeutics in "real-life" interventions.