GWAS and meta-analysis identifies 49 genetic variants underlying critical COVID-19.

Critical illness in COVID-19 is an extreme and clinically homogeneous disease phenotype that we have previously shown1 to be highly efficient for discovery of genetic associations2. Despite the advanced stage of illness at presentation, we have shown that host genetics in patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 can identify immunomodulatory therapies with strong beneficial effects in this group3. Here we analyse 24,202 cases of COVID-19 with critical illness comprising a combination of microarray genotype and whole-genome sequencing data from cases of critical illness in the international GenOMICC (11,440 cases) study, combined with other studies recruiting hospitalized patients with a strong focus on severe and critical disease: ISARIC4C (676 cases) and the SCOURGE consortium (5,934 cases). To put these results in the context of existing work, we conduct a meta-analysis of the new GenOMICC genome-wide association study (GWAS) results with previously published data. We find 49 genome-wide significant associations, of which 16 have not been reported previously. To investigate the therapeutic implications of these findings, we infer the structural consequences of protein-coding variants, and combine our GWAS results with gene expression data using a monocyte transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) model, as well as gene and protein expression using Mendelian randomization. We identify potentially druggable targets in multiple systems, including inflammatory signalling (JAK1), monocyte-macrophage activation and endothelial permeability (PDE4A), immunometabolism (SLC2A5 and AK5), and host factors required for viral entry and replication (TMPRSS2 and RAB2A).

Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

Preparing for pandemics: a systematic review of pandemic influenza clinical management guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of evidence-based clinical decision-making. Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) may help reduce morbidity and mortality by improving the quality of clinical decisions. This systematic review aims to evaluate the availability, inclusivity, and quality of pandemic influenza CMGs, to identify gaps that can be addressed to strengthen pandemic preparedness in this area. METHODS: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, TRIP (Turning Research Into Practice), and Guideline Central were searched systematically from January 2008 to 23rd June 2022, complemented by a grey literature search till 16th June 2022. Pandemic influenza CMGs including supportive care or empirical treatment recommendations were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their quality using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). The findings are presented narratively. RESULTS: Forty-eight CMGs were included. They were produced in high- (42%, 20/48), upper-middle- (40%, 19/48), and lower-middle (8%, 4/48) income countries, or by international organisations (10%, 5/48). Most CMGs (81%, 39/48) were over 5 years old. Guidelines included treatment recommendations for children (75%, 36/48), pregnant women (54%, 26/48), people with immunosuppression (33%, 16/48), and older adults (29%, 14/48). Many CMGs were of low quality (median overall score: 3 out of 7 (range 1-7). All recommended oseltamivir; recommendations for other neuraminidase inhibitors and supportive care were limited and at times contradictory. Only 56% (27/48) and 27% (13/48) addressed oxygen and fluid therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlights the limited availability of up-to-date pandemic influenza CMGs globally. Of those identified, many were limited in scope and quality and several lacked recommendations for specific at-risk populations. Recommendations on supportive care, the mainstay of treatment, were limited and heterogeneous. The most recent guideline highlighted that the evidence-base to support antiviral treatment recommendations is still limited. There is an urgent need for trials into treatment and supportive care strategies including for different risk populations. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient outcomes. A 'living guideline' framework is recommended and further research into guideline implementation in different resourced settings, particularly low- and middle-income countries.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial.

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Trial was set up in March 2020 to evaluate treatments for people hospitalised with COVID-19. To maximise recruitment it was designed to fit into routine clinical care throughout the UK, and as a result it has enrolled more patients than any other COVID-19 treatment trial. RECOVERY has shown four drugs to be life-saving - dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab-imdevimab - and a further six have been shown to be of little or no benefit. In each case, results from RECOVERY were clear enough to rapidly influence global practice. Some of the reasons for this success relate to its particular setting in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but many are generalisable to other contexts. In particular, its focus on recruiting large numbers of patients to identify or rule out moderate but worthwhile benefits of treatment, and the design decisions that followed from this. Similar large streamlined trials could produce similarly clear answers about the treatment of many other common diseases.

The effect of hand hygiene frequency on reducing acute respiratory infections in the community: a meta-analysis.

Hand hygiene is a simple, low-cost intervention that may lead to substantial population-level effects in suppressing acute respiratory infection epidemics. However, quantification of the efficacy of hand hygiene on respiratory infection in the community is lacking. We searched PubMed for randomised controlled trials on the effect of hand hygiene for reducing acute respiratory infections in the community published before 11 March 2021. We performed a meta-regression analysis using a Bayesian mixed-effects model. A total of 105 publications were identified, out of which six studies reported hand hygiene frequencies. Four studies were performed in household settings and two were in schools. The average number of handwashing events per day ranged from one to eight in the control arms, and four to 17 in the intervention arms. We estimated that a single hand hygiene event is associated with a 3% (80% credible interval (-1% to 7%)) decrease in the daily probability of an acute respiratory infection. Three of these six studies were potentially at high risk of bias because the primary outcome depended on self-reporting of upper respiratory tract symptoms. Well-designed trials with an emphasis on monitoring hand hygiene adherence are needed to confirm these findings.

The European clinical research response to optimise treatment of patients with COVID-19: lessons learned, future perspective, and recommendations.

Clinicians have worked feverishly to treat patients with COVID-19 while also carrying out clinical research studies. We discuss how the clinical research community responded to the pandemic in Europe, what lessons were learned, and provide recommendations for future clinical research response during pandemics. We focused on two platform trials: RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP. Both trials were able to enrol patients very rapidly during the beginning of the pandemic because of pre-established structures and procedures, and because they share simple execution and flexibility to adjust when evidence emergences. However, contracting, regulatory hurdles, and competition with (often inadequately designed or underpowered) national trials was a major challenge in several EU countries. We recommend the creation of structures and partnerships that facilitate prioritisation of clinical research, simplification of clinical trial delivery, development of digital models and procedures for data collection and sharing, development of a mechanism to rapidly leverage pandemic funding and to connect EU funding with national funding, and investment in clinical trial networks, platform trials, and master protocols. Finally, the future pandemic clinical research response of the EU should be embedded in the global response. We believe that globally connected clinical trial networks will be essential to respond more effectively to future infectious diseases outbreaks.

Mortality and critical care unit admission associated with the SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant of concern 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We aimed to estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in patients who are critically ill, and overall mortality associated with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with non-B.1.1.7. We also compared clinical outcomes between these two groups. METHODS: For this observational cohort study, we linked large primary care (QResearch), national critical care (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme), and national COVID-19 testing (Public Health England) databases. We used SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with S-gene molecular diagnostic assay failure (SGTF) as a proxy for the presence of lineage B.1.1.7. We extracted two cohorts from the data: the primary care cohort, comprising patients in primary care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 26, 2021, and known SGTF status; and the critical care cohort, comprising patients admitted for critical care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 27, 2021, and known SGTF status. We explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection with and without lineage B.1.1.7 and admission to a critical care unit (CCU), 28-day mortality, and 28-day mortality following CCU admission. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, geographical region, other sociodemographic factors (deprivation index, ethnicity, household housing category, and smoking status for the primary care cohort; and ethnicity, body-mass index, deprivation index, and dependency before admission to acute hospital for the CCU cohort), and comorbidities (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and hypertension for the primary care cohort; and cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, metastatic disease, and immunocompromised conditions for the CCU cohort). We reported information on types and duration of organ support for the B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 groups. FINDINGS: The primary care cohort included 198 420 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 117 926 (59·4%) had lineage B.1.1.7, 836 (0·4%) were admitted to CCU, and 899 (0·4%) died within 28 days. The critical care cohort included 4272 patients admitted to CCU. Of these, 2685 (62·8%) had lineage B.1.1.7 and 662 (15·5%) died at the end of critical care. In the primary care cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2·15 (95% CI 1·75-2·65) for CCU admission and 1·65 (1·36-2·01) for 28-day mortality for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with the non-B.1.1.7 group. The adjusted HR for mortality in critical care, estimated with the critical care cohort, was 0·91 (0·76-1·09) for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with those with non-B.1.1.7 infection. INTERPRETATION: Patients with lineage B.1.1.7 were at increased risk of CCU admission and 28-day mortality compared with patients with non-B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appeared to be independent of virus strain. Our findings emphasise the importance of measures to control exposure to and infection with COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Ten months of temporal variation in the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort.

Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly evolving situation. Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

Incidence and risk factors for persistent symptoms in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The long-term sequalae of COVID-19 remain poorly characterized. We assessed persistent symptoms in previously hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and assessed potential risk factors. METHODS: Data were collected from patients discharged from 4 hospitals in Moscow, Russia between 8 April and 10 July 2020. Participants were interviewed via telephone using an ISARIC Long-term Follow-up Study questionnaire. RESULTS: 2,649 of 4755 (56%) discharged patients were successfully evaluated, at median 218 (IQR 200, 236) days post-discharge. COVID-19 diagnosis was clinical in 1291 and molecular in 1358. Most cases were mild, but 902 (34%) required supplemental oxygen and 68 (2.6%) needed ventilatory support. Median age was 56 years (IQR 46, 66) and 1,353 (51.1%) were women. Persistent symptoms were reported by 1247 (47.1%) participants, with fatigue (21.2%), shortness of breath (14.5%) and forgetfulness (9.1%) the most common symptoms and chronic fatigue (25%) and respiratory (17.2%) the most common symptom categories. Female sex was associated with any persistent symptom category OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.17) with association being strongest for dermatological (3.26, 2.36 to 4.57) symptoms. Asthma and chronic pulmonary disease were not associated with persistent symptoms overall, but asthma was associated with neurological (1.95, 1.25 to 2.98) and mood and behavioural changes (2.02, 1.24 to 3.18), and chronic pulmonary disease was associated with chronic fatigue (1.68, 1.21 to 2.32). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of adults admitted to hospital due to COVID-19 reported persistent symptoms 6 to 8 months after discharge. Fatigue and respiratory symptoms were most common, and female sex was associated with persistent symptoms.

Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices.

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to "unlearn" what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than 'pre-print', such as 'Unrefereed manuscript', "Manuscript awaiting peer review" or ''Non-reviewed manuscript"; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating 'Caution-Not Peer Reviewed'; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

Making trials part of good clinical care: lessons from the RECOVERY trial.

When COVID-19 hit the UK in early 2020, there were no known treatments for a condition that results in the death of around one in four patients hospitalised with this disease. Around the world, possible treatments were administered to huge numbers of patients, without any reliable assessments of safety and efficacy. The rapid generation of high-quality evidence was vital. RECOVERY is a streamlined, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, which was set up in response to this challenge. As of April 2021, over 39,000 patients have been enrolled from 178 hospital sites in the UK. Within 100 days of its initiation, RECOVERY demonstrated that dexamethasone improves survival for patients with severe disease; a result that was rapidly implemented in the UK and internationally saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Importantly, it also showed that other widely used treatments (such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) have no meaningful benefit for hospitalised patients. This was only possible through randomisation of large numbers of patients and the adoption of streamlined and pragmatic procedures focused on quality, together with widespread collaboration focused on a single goal. RECOVERY illustrates how clinical trials and healthcare can be integrated, even in a pandemic. This approach provides new opportunities to generate the evidence needed for high-quality healthcare not only for a pandemic but for the many other conditions that place a burden on patients and the healthcare system.

Chemoprophylaxis trial designs in epidemics: insights from a systematic review of COVID-19 study registrations.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprophylactics against emerging epidemic and pandemic infectious diseases offer potential for prevention but require efficacy and safety analysis before widespread use can be recommended. Chemoprophylaxis with repurposed drugs enables deployment ahead of development of novel vaccines. It may have particular utility as a stopgap ahead of vaccine deployment or when vaccines become less effective on virus variants, in countries where there may be structural inaccessibility to vaccines or in specific risk-groups. Rapid implementation of robust trial designs is a persistent challenge in epidemics. We systematically reviewed SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis trial registrations from the first 21 weeks of the pandemic to critically appraise significant design features and alignment of study populations to clinical and public health uses, and describe candidate chemoprophylactic agents. METHODS: We searched online international trial databases from 31 Dec 2019 to 26 May 2020 using keywords "proph*" or "prevention". Trial protocols assessing efficacy of chemoprophylactic agents for COVID-19 were included. Trial components were screened for eligibility and relevant studies extracted. Key trial design features were assessed. RESULTS: We found 76 chemoprophylaxis study registrations, proposing enrolment of 208,367 people with median size of 490 (IQR 262-1710). A randomised design was specified for 63 trials, 61 included a control group and total proposed enrolment size was 197,010, median 600 (IQR 236-1834). Four protocols provided information on effect size sought. We estimate that for a control group attack rate of 10%, 66% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 50% effect size, and 97% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 30% effect size (at the 80% level). We found evidence of adaptive design in one trial registration only. Laboratory-confirmed infection with or without symptoms was the most common primary outcome. Polymerase chain reaction testing alone was used in 46% of trials, serological testing in 6.6% and 14.5% used both testing methods. Healthcare workers were the target population in 52/79 (65.8%) trials: 49 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 3 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sixteen trials (20.3%) planned PEP in close contacts. Five studies (6.3%) considered chemoprophylaxis in clinical-risk patients. Older adults were the focus of recruitment in only 3 (3.8%) studies (all long-term care facilities). Two (2.5%) studies of PrEP in the general population included older adults. Hydroxychloroquine was the most common candidate agent in 55/79 trials (69.6%), followed by chloroquine (4/79, 5.0%) and lopinavir/ritonavir (3/79, 3.8%). CONCLUSION: Many registered COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis efficacy trials were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful protection at epidemiologically informed attack rates. This, compounded with the time that has taken to organise these trials as compared to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, has rendered these trials of marginal importance. International coordination mechanisms and collaboration is required. Supporting the design of feasible chemoprophylaxis trials, large enough to generate strong evidence, early on in an epidemic using adaptive platform trial designs will allow structured entry and exit of candidate agents and rapid stand-up of trial infrastructure. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered at https://www.osf.io/vp56f on May 20, 2020.