RESUMO
Objective: We assessed the effectiveness of oral Hydroxychloroquine (HC), Azithromycin (AZ) and Oseltamivir (OS), alone or combined, among patients hospitalized with mildly symptomatic coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19). Methods: Following the approval of the National Bioethics Committee and prospective registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04338698), a multicenter randomized clinical trial of adaptive design was conducted at 10 multispecialty hospitals in Pakistan. Patients were randomized into seven treatment groups. Starting April 15, 2020, consenting, eligible, otherwise healthy adult patients or those with co-morbidities under control, were recruited if they presented with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 (scored 3 on a 7-point ordinal scale anchored between 1 = not hospitalized, able to undertake normal activities, to 7 = death) confirmed by quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR). Two primary outcomes were assessed by day seven: Turning qRT-PCR negative; and clinical improvement of two points from the baseline. Outcome rates were compared using a chi-square test. Multiple imputations were applied to handle missing data. An interim data analysis was carried out on July 19, 2020, following which the study continued without treatment group changes. Data Safety and Monitoring Board advised to stop recruitment due to its futility on January 18, 2021. Results: Of 471 patients randomized, a total of 426 (90.4%) completed the follow-up for primary outcomes. Based on imputed data analyses at day seven: Total qRT-PCR negative cases were 137/471 (29%, 95% CI 25.0 - 33.4). By day seven, a total of 111/471 (23.5%, 95% CI 19.8 - 27.6) showed clinical improvement. No serious or non-serious adverse event was reported. Conclusions: Among patients with mild COVID-19, there was no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of oral antimalarial, antiviral, or antibiotic treatments.Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04338698.
RESUMO
Investing in clinical research and evidence-based medicine has helped to improve the care for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, several important questions remain unanswered on the optimal prevention and management strategies for PCOS. Addressing this uncertainty is often hindered by suboptimal research conduct leading to inefficient evidence synthesis and research wastage. PCOS research is often practised by varied specialized teams in silo leading to disharmonious and fragmented efforts neglecting the lifelong impact of PCOS on women's wellbeing. Poor engagement among key stakeholders and lay consumers continues to limit the impact and benefits of research to society. Selective reporting on surrogate outcomes with a 'significant' P-value is a common malpractice in PCOS outputs. Effective adoption of the harmonizing research outcomes for PCOS (HARP) core outcome set is needed to minimize heterogeneity in reporting and promote research excellence. Small single-centre studies offer limited value to assess the varied PCOS phenotypes. Efficient large scale data-sharing is needed to address complex research questions and glean the benefits of big data research. We propose a roadmap to address these challenges and remedy future research need by promoting patient and public involvement in PCOS research to guide research efforts and address real patients' needs; engaging all key stakeholder groups to promote a multi-disciplinary lifelong approach to new research; continuously refining research needs and priorities to revise the knowledge gap and allocate resources judiciously; standardizing outcomes definitions and measurement tools to harmonize reporting and promote excellence in research; and by investing in large data-sharing infrastructure to facilitate big data research and govern ethical data sharing.