Antiviral drug treatment for nonsevere COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Immediate-term cognitive impairment following intravenous (IV) chemotherapy: a prospective pre-post design study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is commonly reported in patients receiving chemotherapy, but the acuity of onset is not known. This study utilized the psychomotor vigilance test (PVT) and trail-making test B (TMT-B) to assess cognitive impairment immediately post-chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years receiving first-line intravenous chemotherapy for any stage of breast or colorectal cancer were eligible. Patient symptoms, peripheral neuropathy and Stanford Sleepiness Scale were assessed. A five-minute PVT and TMT-B were completed on a tablet computer pre-chemotherapy and immediately post-chemotherapy. Using a mixed linear regression model, changes in reciprocal transformed PVT reaction time (mean 1/RT) were assessed. A priori, an increase in median PVT reaction times by > 20 ms (approximating PVT changes with blood alcohol concentrations of 0.04-0.05 g%) was considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two cancer patients (73 breast, 69 colorectal, median age 55.5 years) were tested. Post-chemotherapy, mean 1/RT values were significantly slowed compared to pre-chemotherapy baseline (p = 0.01). This corresponded to a median PVT reaction time slowed by an average of 12.4 ms. Changes in PVT reaction times were not correlated with age, sex, cancer type, treatment setting, or use of supportive medications. Median post-chemotherapy PVT reaction time slowed by an average of 22.5 ms in breast cancer patients and by 1.6 ms in colorectal cancer patients. Post-chemotherapy median PVT times slowed by > 20 ms in 57 patients (40.1%). Exploratory analyses found no statistically significant association between the primary outcome and self-reported anxiety, fatigue or depression. TMT-B completion speed improved significantly post-chemotherapy (p = 0.03), likely due to test-retest phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: PVT reaction time slowed significantly immediately post-chemotherapy compared to a pre-chemotherapy baseline, and levels of impairment similar to effects of alcohol consumption in other studies was seen in 40% of patients. Further studies assessing functional impact of cognitive impairment on patients immediately after chemotherapy are warranted.

Prognostic Significance of Lymphovascular Space Invasion in the Absence of Lymph Node Metastases in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) has been defined as a significant adverse prognostic factor in early-stage endometrial cancer, primarily because of its high association with nodal metastases. This study aimed to determine if LVSI provides any prognostic significance in pathologic node-negative surgically staged (T1N0) endometrial cancer patients. METHODS/MATERIALS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with pathologic stage T1N0 endometrial carcinoma treated at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre from 1998 to 2007. Patient demographics, pathologic findings, treatment, and outcome data were collected. Univariate and multivariate cox regression modeling was used to assess significance and adjust for demographic and histopathologic covariates. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Our study included 400 pathologic stage T1N0 patients who received an initial total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with lymphadenectomy. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years, and the median follow-up was 66 months. Fifty-four patients (13.5%) had a positive LVSI status, and 346 (86.5%) had a negative LVSI status. The 5-year overall survival was 97.3% in patients without LVSI and 90.9% in those with LVSI (P < 0.001). The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 95.2% in patients without LVSI and 85.9% in those with LVSI (P = 0.006). Univariate analysis identified grade, stage, and LVSI as the covariates significantly associated with time to recurrence, and identified age, grade, stage, and LVSI to be significantly associated with overall survival. There were no significant covariates for recurrence-free survival by multivariate analysis, and only age and LVSI were significant for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphovascular space invasion is an overall poor prognostic factor in T1N0 endometrial cancer. After adjusting for other factors, LVSI remains an independent risk factor for worse overall survival. Therefore, estimation of overall survival in patients with early-stage, node-negative endometrial cancer should take into account LVSI status.

Baxter elastomeric pumps: Weighing as an alternative to visual inspection.

Purpose Elastomeric pumps are used to administer 46-hour infusions of 5-fluorouracil (5FU). Baxter suggests patients visually monitor their pumps to ensure that infusions are proceeding correctly. This can be confusing and lead to concerns about under- or over-dosing. Baxter has not considered weighing pumps as a validated method for monitoring. This study aims to validate weighing as a more accurate method for patients and healthcare professionals, and describe real life Baxter Infusor™ variability. Methods Patients who had been started on a 46-hour 5FU infusion returned to the clinic approximately 24 h after starting treatment. The pump was weighed on a StarFrit kitchen scale, and date, time, and weights recorded. Patients were asked if they had a preference for weighing or visually inspecting their pump. Results Pumps ( n = 103) were weighed between 17.25 and 27.5 h after connection. The average weight of a pump was 189 g. Of 103 pumps weighed, 99 weighed less than expected, corresponding to average flow rates of 5.69 mL/h over the elapsed time. The expected flow rate is 5 mL/h with 10% variability. Average flow rates within the 17.25- to 27.5-hour window were 4.561 mL/h, which is 8.78% slower than expected, but within the 10% known variability. Forty-seven percent of patients didn't have a preference for either method, but for those who did have a preference, more than twice as many preferred weighing. Conclusion With proper education, weighing Baxter Infusors at home with kitchen scales can be an accepted and objective alternative to the current recommendation of visual inspection.

The Evolution of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trials: Application of the ASCO Framework for Assessing Value.

Background: Phase III trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have collectively led to progressive advancements in patient outcomes over the past decades. This study characterizes the evolution of mCRC phase III trials through assessing the value of cancer therapy, as measured by the ASCO Value Framework. Methods: Phase III trial results of systemic therapy for mCRC published between 1980 and 2015 were identified, and their outcome, statistical significance, journal impact factor, and citation by the 2016 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for CRC were recorded. For each trial, the net health benefit (NHB) score was calculated using the June 2015 (original) and May 2016 (revised) ASCO Value Framework: Advanced Disease. Results: There were 114 mCRC phase III trials eligible for calculation of the NHB score. Using the revised framework, the median NHB score was 4.6 (range, -30 to 43.5); 12% of trials received bonus points. Trials with statistically significant results had higher NHB scores compared with nonsignificant trials (median NHB score, 21.6 vs 2.9; P<.0001). Clinical trials cited in the NCCN Guidelines had higher NHB scores than those not cited (median score, 8.0 vs 0.3; P=.02). In multivariate linear regression analysis, the only significant predictor of high NHB score was statistically significant studies. Conclusions: The median NHB score for mCRC phase III trials was 4.6. Higher NHB scores are associated with statistically significant studies and are cited in the NCCN Guidelines, a surrogate for practice-changing trials. The 2016 ASCO Value Framework may not fully capture the benefits on an individual patient level.

Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%. CONCLUSION: We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Identification of outcomes in clinical studies of interventions for venous thromboembolism in non-pregnant adults: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The development of a core outcome set (COS), defined as an agreed minimum set of outcome domains that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific disease, aims to increase the relevance of study findings to stakeholder groups and improve standardization. OBJECTIVES: As the first step in developing a COS for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment studies, we aimed to generate an inclusive list of unique outcomes reported in previous VTE treatment studies and classify them into domains and core areas. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for prospective studies reporting on interventions for VTE in non-pregnant adults. Study selection and data extraction were performed in blocks based on publication date, starting with 2015-2020 and subsequent 1-year periods, until no new outcome was identified. Outcomes were classified into domains, which are groups of closely related outcomes, and domains into four core areas including death, pathophysiological manifestations/abnormalities, life impact, and resource use. RESULTS: Of 7100 records identified, 240 publications were included, representing 165 distinct studies. A total of 205 unique outcomes were identified that were grouped into 48 domains; 30 (13%) studies covered at least three core areas; death was included in 102 (43%), pathophysiological manifestations/abnormalities in 218 (91%), life impact in 41 (17%), and resource use in 25 (10%) studies. CONCLUSION: Most VTE treatment studies evaluated pathophysiological features of VTE, but few studies reported outcomes that measured life impact or resource use. The findings will inform next steps in the development of a COS for VTE treatment studies.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results: Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review.

Objective: To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective review. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021). Main outcome measures: Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Results: Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded-the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons. Conclusion: No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies.

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010-2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015-2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

The Utility of Penile Bulb Contouring to Localise the Prostate Apex as Compared to Urethrography.

PURPOSE: High-precision radiotherapy relies on accurate anatomic localisation. Urethrography is often used to localise the prostatic apex. However, urethrography is an invasive localisation procedure and may introduce a systemic error. The penile bulb (PB) is contoured to minimise the risk of erectile dysfunction. The purpose of this study is to assess the value of using the PB, as an alternative to urethrography, to localise the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The PB was localised on 10 patients treated with simplified intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy at computed tomography simulation during treatment weeks 1 and 7. All patients underwent placement of fiducial markers. Urethrography was used only at simulation. Distances from the superior PB contour to the inferior prostate contour, the apex fiducial marker, and to the inferior prostate contour were obtained as well. The PB was contoured by two observers independently. Agreement coefficients and analysis of variance were used to assess reliability between rates and consistency of measurements over time. RESULTS: The PB-apex distance was greater than or equal to the urethrogram-apex distance in 24/30 (80%) measurements, and the median difference was 3 mm and was consistent between raters. The greatest variation in PB-IM distance between weeks was 6 mm, the median was 3 mm, and the agreements of measurements between weeks for raters 1 and 2 were 0.79 and 0.69, respectively. These differences were not statistically different and were consistent with the computed tomography slice thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The PB can be used to identify the prostate apex and can be reliably contoured between observers. Measurements are consistent between patients and through the duration of treatment. The PB distance measurements support studies indicating that urethrography causes a shift of the prostate superiorly. The distance from the PB to prostate apex remains stable during treatment for individual patients but varies between patients.