Design, Conduct, Analysis, and Reporting of Therapeutic Efficacy Studies in Visceral Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review of Published Reports, 2000-2021.

A systematic review (SR) of published efficacy studies in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) was undertaken to describe methodological aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. Studies published during 2000-2021 and indexed in the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory VL library of clinical studies were eligible for inclusion (N = 89 studies). Of the 89 studies, 40 (44.9%) were randomized, 33 (37.1%) were single-armed, 14 (15.7%) were nonrandomized multiarmed studies, and randomization status was unclear in two (2.2%). After initial screening, disease confirmation was done by microscopy in 26 (29.2%) and by a combination of serology and microscopy in 63 (70.8%). Post-treatment follow-up duration was <6 months in three (3.3%) studies, 6 months in 75 (84.3%), and >6 months in 11 (12.4%) studies. Confirmation of relapse was solely based on clinical suspicion in four (4.5%) studies, parasitological demonstration in 64 (71.9%), using molecular/serological/parasitological method in 6 (6.7%), and there was no information in 15 (16.9%). Of the 40 randomized studies, sample size calculation was reported in only 22 (55.0%) studies. This review highlights substantial variations in definitions adopted for disease diagnosis and therapeutic outcomes suggesting a need for a harmonized trials protocol.

Estimating the proportion of relapse following treatment of Visceral Leishmaniasis: meta-analysis using Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) systematic review.

Background: Occurrences of relapse after 6-months post-treatment has been reported in recent Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) efficacy studies. A meta-analysis was carried out to quantify the proportion of relapses observed at and beyond 6-months using the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) systematic review (SR) database. Methods: Studies in the IDDO SR database (1983-2021; 160 studies) were eligible for inclusion if follow-up was at least 6-months, relapse was clearly reported, and patients with HIV coinfections were excluded. Meta-analysis of single proportion was undertaken and the estimates were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Findings: Overall, 131 studies enrolling 27,687 patients were included; 1193 patients relapsed. In the Indian sub-continent (ISC), relapse estimates at 6-months was 4.5% [95% CI: 2.6%-7.5%; I2 = 66.2%] following single dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) and 1.5% [95% CI: 0.7%-3.3%; I2 = 0%] for L-AmB in a combination therapy. In East Africa (EA), corresponding estimates were 3.8% [95% CI: 1.3%-10.9%; I2 = 75.8%] following pentavalent antimony (PA), and 13.0% [95% CI: 4.3%-33.6%; I2 = 0%] for PA + paromomycin. From 21 studies with follow-up longer than 6-months, 0.6% [95% CI: 0.2%-1.8%; I2 = 0%] of patients relapsed after 6-months and estimated 27.6% [95% CI: 11.2%-53.4%; I2 = 12%] of relapses would have been missed by a 6-month follow-up. Interpretation: The estimated relapse proportion ranged from 0.5% to 4.5% in ISC and 3.8%-13.0% in EA with the currently recommended drugs. Over one-quarter of relapses would be missed with 6-months follow-up suggesting a longer follow-up may be warranted. Funding: Wellcome Trust (ref: 208378/Z/17/Z).

The lymphatic filariasis treatment study landscape: A systematic review of study characteristics and the case for an individual participant data platform.

BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) targeted by the World Health Organization for elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Since 2000, more than 9 billion treatments of antifilarial medicines have been distributed through mass drug administration (MDA) programmes in 72 endemic countries and 17 countries have reached EPHP. Yet in 2021, nearly 900 million people still required MDA with combinations of albendazole, diethylcarbamazine and/or ivermectin. Despite the reliance on these drugs, there remain gaps in understanding of variation in responses to treatment. As demonstrated for other infectious diseases, some urgent questions could be addressed by conducting individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses. Here, we present the results of a systematic literature review to estimate the abundance of IPD on pre- and post-intervention indicators of infection and/or morbidity and assess the feasibility of building a global data repository. METHODOLOGY: We searched literature published between 1st January 2000 and 5th May 2023 in 15 databases to identify prospective studies assessing LF treatment and/or morbidity management and disease prevention (MMDP) approaches. We considered only studies where individual participants were diagnosed with LF infection or disease and were followed up on at least one occasion after receiving an intervention/treatment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 138 eligible studies from 23 countries, having followed up an estimated 29,842 participants after intervention. We estimate 14,800 (49.6%) IPD on pre- and post-intervention infection indicators including microfilaraemia, circulating filarial antigen and/or ultrasound indicators measured before and after intervention using 8 drugs administered in various combinations. We identified 33 studies on MMDP, estimating 6,102 (20.4%) IPD on pre- and post-intervention clinical morbidity indicators only. A further 8,940 IPD cover a mixture of infection and morbidity outcomes measured with other diagnostics, from participants followed for adverse event outcomes only or recruited after initial intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The LF treatment study landscape is heterogeneous, but the abundance of studies and related IPD suggest that establishing a global data repository to facilitate IPD meta-analyses would be feasible and useful to address unresolved questions on variation in treatment outcomes across geographies, demographics and in underrepresented groups. New studies using more standardized approaches should be initiated to address the scarcity and inconsistency of data on morbidity management.

Improving anthelmintic treatment for schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiases through sharing and reuse of individual participant data.

The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO, https://www.iddo.org) has launched a clinical data platform for the collation, curation, standardisation and reuse of individual participant data (IPD) on treatments for two of the most globally important neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), schistosomiasis (SCH) and soil-transmitted helminthiases (STHs). This initiative aims to harness the power of data-sharing by facilitating collaborative joint analyses of pooled datasets to generate robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of anthelminthic treatment regimens. A crucial component of this endeavour has been the development of a Research Agenda to promote engagement with the SCH and STH research and disease control communities by highlighting key questions that could be tackled using data shared through the IDDO platform. Here, we give a contextual overview of the priority research themes articulated in the Research Agenda-a 'living' document hosted on the IDDO website-and describe the three-stage consultation process behind its development. We also discuss the sustainability and future directions of the platform, emphasising throughout the power and promise of ethical and equitable sharing and reuse of clinical data to support the elimination of NTDs.

Serious adverse events following treatment of visceral leishmaniasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite a historical association with poor tolerability, a comprehensive review on safety of antileishmanial chemotherapies is lacking. We carried out an update of a previous systematic review of all published clinical trials in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) from 1980 to 2019 to document any reported serious adverse events (SAEs). METHODS: For this updated systematic review, we searched the following databases from 1st Jan 2016 through 2nd of May 2019: PUBMED, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and the Global Index Medicus. We included randomised and non-randomised interventional studies aimed at assessing therapeutic efficacy and extracted the number of SAEs reported within the first 30 days of treatment initiation. The incidence rate of death (IRD) from individual treatment arms were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS: We identified 157 published studies enrolling 35,376 patients in 347 treatment arms. Pentavalent antimony was administered in 74 (21.3%), multiple-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in 52 (15.0%), amphotericin b deoxycholate in 51 (14.7%), miltefosine in 33 (9.5%), amphotericin b fat/lipid/colloid/cholesterol in 31 (8.9%), and single-dose L-AmB in 17 (4.9%) arms. There was a total of 804 SAEs reported of which 793 (including 428 deaths) were extracted at study arm level (11 SAEs were reported at study level only). During the first 30 days, there were 285 (66.6%) deaths with the overall IRD estimated at 0.068 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.041-0.114; I2 = 81.4%; 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.001-2.779] per 1,000 person-days at risk; the rate was 0.628 [95% CI: 0.368-1.021; I2 = 82.5%] in Eastern Africa, and 0.041 [95% CI: 0.021-0.081; I2 = 68.1%] in the Indian Subcontinent. In 21 study arms which clearly indicated allowing the inclusion of patients with HIV co-infections the IRD was 0.575 [95% CI: 0.244-1.355; I2 = 91.9%] compared to 0.043 [95% CI: 0.020-0.090; I2 = 62.5%] in 160 arms which excluded HIV co-infections. CONCLUSION: Mortality within the first 30 days of VL treatment initiation was a rarely reported event in clinical trials with an overall estimated rate of 0.068 deaths per 1,000 person-days at risk, though it varied across regions and patient populations. These estimates may serve as a benchmark for future trials against which mortality data from prospective and pharmacovigilance studies can be compared. The methodological limitations exposed by our review support the need to assemble individual patient data (IPD) to conduct robust IPD meta-analyses and generate stronger evidence from existing trials to support treatment guidelines and guide future research.

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results.  Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions:  Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence.  The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.