E-cigarette manufacturers' compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a frequently debated topic in public health. It is essential that clinical trials examining e-cigarettes are fully and accurately reported, especially given long-standing concerns about tobacco industry research. We assess the reporting of clinical trials sponsored by Juul Labs, the largest e-cigarette company in the USA, against accepted reporting standards. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all trials sponsored by Juul Labs and determined those with registry data consistent with coverage by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act 2007 (FDAAA). For trials with a primary completion date more than 1 year earlier, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the academic literature and a Juul-funded research database (JLI Science) for results. For located results, we compared reported outcomes with registered outcomes in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We located five registered trials sponsored by Juul Labs that appeared covered by the FDAAA 2007 in the public data. All five trials did not have results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. We found one publication and four poster presentations reporting results for four of the five covered trials outside of ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 61 specified outcomes, 28 were CONSORT compliant. Specific outcome reporting issues are detailed. DISCUSSION: Our findings raise substantial concerns regarding these trials. Clinicians, public health professionals, and the public cannot make informed choices about the benefits or hazards of e-cigarettes if the results of clinical trials are not completely and transparently reported. Clarification and potential enforcement of reporting laws may be required.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Issues with reporting and interpretation of Khan et al. 2021.

A recent publication in BMC Infectious Diseases concerning the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 had a number of major issues. This correspondence details specific instances of unclear reporting as well as major omissions when discussing the context of the trial. These render the study's findings and conclusions misleading.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of death from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort analysis based on two cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. METHODS: We conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region. RESULTS: In study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.

Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study.

Objective: To identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository. Design: Cross sectional audit study. Setting: EUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020. Population: Random sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018). Main outcome measures: Proportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route. Results: In the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1). Conclusions: EUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.

Victoria's surgical response to the COVID-19 pandemic: the first two years.

Victoria suffered three major waves during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Melbourne became the longest locked down city in the world at 267 days. This narrative review documents the chronological waves of COVID-19 in Victoria and key themes influencing the State-wide surgical response. In 2020, Victoria needed to secure supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and later, recognizing the importance of aerosol transmission, introduced a respiratory protection program to protect health care workers (HCWs) with fit-tested N-95 masks. It established routine preoperative PCR testing for periods when community prevalence was high and developed strategies to restrict elective surgery when hospital capacity was limited. In 2021, three short-term outbreaks were contained and eliminated whilst vaccination of HCWs and the vulnerable was taking place. A third major wave (Delta) occurred July to November 2021, succeeded by another involving the Omicron variant from December 2021. Planned surgery waiting list numbers, and waiting times for surgery, doubled between March 2020 and March 2022. In early 2022, almost 300 patients underwent surgery when infected with Omicron, with a low mortality (2.6%), though mortality was significantly higher in the unvaccinated (7.3% versus 1.4%). In conclusion, the Victorian response to COVID-19 involved tight state-wide social restrictions, contact tracing, furlough, escalating PPE guidance and respiratory protection. HCW infections were greatly reduced in 2021 compared with 2020. Pre-operative PCR testing gave confidence for emergency and urgent elective surgery to proceed during pandemic waves. Other elective cases were performed as health system capacity allowed, without compromising outcomes.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY.

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%). Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Ethnicity and the risk of late-pregnancy stillbirth.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if maternal country of birth is associated with the risk of antepartum stillbirth in late pregnancy. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of all singleton births at 37-42 weeks' gestation, excluding those with congenital abnormalities and intrapartum stillbirths, between 1 June 2001 and 31 May 2011 at Southern Health, a large metropolitan maternity service in Melbourne, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rate of late-pregnancy antepartum stillbirth, analysed by maternal country of birth. RESULTS: Among 44 326 births, there was a significant difference in the stillbirth rate by maternal country of birth (P < 0.001). The rate of stillbirth per 1000 births was 1.48 among Australian-born women, 3.55 among South Asian-born women and 1.06 among South-East-East Asian-born women. Women born in South Asia were 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4-4.0) times more likely to have a late-pregnancy stillbirth than women born in Australia (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between women born in Australia and women born in South-East-East Asia (P = 0.34). Adjusting for potential confounding factors, South Asian maternal birth remained an independent risk factor for stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-5.1; P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Women born in South Asia have an increased risk of antepartum stillbirth in late pregnancy, compared with other women. This observation may have implications for the delivery of pregnancy care in Australia.