Characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 clinical trials of Chinese and Indian traditional medicine: A comparative analysis.

Objective: To assess the main characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 interventional trials of traditional Chinese medicine and traditional Indian medicine. Materials and methods: We assessed design quality and result reporting of COVID-19 trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and traditional Indian medicine (TIM) registered before 10 February 2021, respectively, on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) and Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Comparison groups included registered COVID-19 trials of conventional medicine conducted in China (WMC), India (WMI), and in other countries (WMO). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between time from trial onset to result reporting and trial characteristics. Results: The proportion of COVID-19 trials investigating traditional medicine was 33.7% (130/386) among trials registered on ChiCTR, and 58.6% (266/454) on CTRI. Planned sample sizes were mostly small in all COVID-19 trials (median 100, IQR: 50-200). The proportion of trials that were randomized was 75.4 and 64.8%, respectively, for the TCM and TIM trials. Blinding measures were used in 6.2% of the TCM trials, and 23.6% of the TIM trials. Cox regression analysis revealed that planned COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to have results reported than trials of conventional medicine (hazard ratio 0.713, 95% confidence interval: 0.541-0.939; p = 0.0162). Conclusion: There were considerable between-country and within-country differences in design quality, target sample size, trial participants, and reporting of trial results. Registered COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to report results than trials of conventional medicine.

Comparison of the effectiveness of a milk-free soy-maize-sorghum-based ready-to-use therapeutic food to standard ready-to-use therapeutic food with 25% milk in nutrition management of severely acutely malnourished Zambian children: an equivalence non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial.

Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition using ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) has revolutionised the treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM). However, 25% milk content in standard peanut-based RUTF (P-RUTF) makes it too expensive. The effectiveness of milk-free RUTF has not been reported hitherto. This non-blinded, parallel group, cluster randomised, controlled, equivalence trial that compares the effectiveness of a milk-free soy-maize-sorghum-based RUTF (SMS-RUTF) with P-RUTF in treatment of children with SAM, closes the gap. A statistician randomly assigned health centres (HC) either to the SMS-RUTF (n = 12; 824 enrolled) or P-RUTF (n = 12; 1103 enrolled) arms. All SAM children admitted at the participating HCs were enrolled. All the outcomes were measured at individual level. Recovery rate was the primary outcome. The recovery rates for SMS-RUTF and P-RUTF were 53.3% and 60.8% for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 77.9% and 81.8% for per protocol (PP) analyses, respectively. The corresponding adjusted risk difference (ARD) and 95% confidence interval, were -7.6% (-14.9, 0.6%) and -3.5% (-9,6., 2.7%) for ITT (P = 0.034) and PP analyses (P = 0.257), respectively. An unanticipated interaction (interaction P < 0.001 for ITT analyses and 0.0683 for PP analyses) between the study arm and age group was observed. The ARDs were -10.0 (-17.7 to -2.3)% for ITT (P = 0.013) and -4.7 (-10.0 to 0.7) for PP (P = 0.083) analyses for the <24 months age group and 2.1 (-10.3,14.6)% for ITT (P = 0.726) and -0.6 (-16.1, 14.5) for PP (P = 0.939) for the ≥24 months age group. In conclusion, the study did not confirm our hypothesis of equivalence between SMS-RUTF and P-RUTF in SAM management.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of manual chest physiotherapy techniques on quality of life at six months post exacerbation of COPD (MATREX): a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Manual chest physiotherapy (MCP) techniques involving chest percussion, vibration, and shaking have long been used in the treatment of respiratory conditions. However, methodological limitations in existing research have led to a state of clinical equipoise with respect to this treatment. Thus, for patients hospitalised with an exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), clinical preference tends to dictate whether MCP is given to assist with sputum clearance. We standardised the delivery of MCP and assessed its effectiveness on disease-specific quality of life. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled trial powered for equivalence, 526 patients hospitalised with acute COPD exacerbation were enrolled from four centres in the UK. Patients were allocated to receive MCP plus advice on airway clearance or advice on chest clearance alone. The primary outcome was a COPD specific quality of life measure, the Saint Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at six months post randomisation. Analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). This study was registered, ISRCTN13825248. RESULTS: All patients were included in the analyses, of which 372 (71%) provided evaluable data for the primary outcome. An effect size of 0·3 standard deviations in SGRQ score was specified as the threshold for superiority. The ITT analyses showed no significant difference in SGRQ for patients who did, or did not receive MCP (95% CI -0·14 to 0·19). CONCLUSIONS: These data do not lend support to the routine use of MCP in the management of acute exacerbation of COPD. However, this does not mean that MCP is of no therapeutic value to COPD patients in specific circumstances.