Validation of Blood Pressure Devices as per 2020 World Health Organization Technical Specifications: A Scoping Review of Global Literature.

BACKGROUND: To identify and summarize the global research literature on validation of automated noninvasive blood pressure measurement devices (BPMDs) with upper arm cuff, develop a repository of validated BPMDs in compliance with the 2020 World Health Organization technical specifications, and identify challenges and gaps in evidence base on validated BPMDs. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. Primary research validating BPMDs complying with the 2020 World Health Organization technical specifications (ie, semiautomated/automated noninvasive devices with upper arm cuff), published in English between January 2000 and December 2021, was included. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ProQuest and the dabl website. RESULTS: We included 269 studies validating 251 BPMDs across 89 manufacturers. Omron (29%), Microlife (10%), and A&D Company (8%) were the top 3 manufacturers. The 3 most frequently used validation protocols were the European Society of Hypertension-international protocol 2002 (27%), European Society of Hypertension-international protocol 2010 (25%), and modified British Hypertension Society protocol 1993 (16%), respectively. Nearly 45% of the validated BPMDs were intended for use in clinical settings, 38% were for home or self-measurement use, and 48% were for general adults. Most studies reported that BPMDs passed the validation criteria. There was inadequate reporting across studies, especially pertaining to validation settings. CONCLUSIONS: Most BPMDs fulfilled the validation criteria. However, there are considerable gaps in BPMD research in terms of geographical representation, including specific target populations and diseases/conditions, and a range of arm circumferences. Additionally, a potential strategy is required to accelerate the adoption of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization Universal Standard (International Organization for Standardization 81060-2:2018) for BPMD validation.

Anticoagulation Strategies in Non-Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is uncertain. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive platform trial, we randomly assigned hospitalized adults with Covid-19 to low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis or intermediate-dose or low-dose plus aspirin. In response to external evidence, the aspirin intervention was discontinued and a therapeutic-dose arm added. The primary end point was death or the requirement for new organ support by day 28, analyzed with a Bayesian logistic model. Enrolment was closed as a result of operational constraints. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and March 2022, 1574 patients were randomly assigned. Among 1526 participants included in the analysis (India, n=1273; Australia and New Zealand, n=138; and Nepal, n=115), the primary outcome occurred in 35 (5.9%) of 596 in low-dose, 25 (4.2%) of 601 in intermediate-dose, 20 (7.2%) of 279 in low-dose plus aspirin, and 7 (14%) of 50 in therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Compared with low-dose thromboprophylaxis, the median adjusted odds ratio for the primary outcome for intermediate-dose was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.43 to 1.27; posterior probability of effectiveness [adjusted odds ratio<1; Pr], 86%), for low-dose plus aspirin 0.88 (95% CrI, 0.47 to 1.64; Pr, 65%), and for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation 2.22 (95% CrI, 0.77 to 6.20; Pr, 7%). Overall thrombotic and bleeding rates were 0.8% and 0.4%, respectively. There were 10 serious adverse reactions related to anticoagulation strategy, of which nine were grade 1 or 2 across study interventions and one grade 4 episode of retroperitoneal hematoma in a patient receiving intermediate-dose anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized non­critically ill adults with Covid-19, compared with low-dose, there was an 86% posterior probability that intermediate-dose, 65% posterior probability that low-dose plus aspirin, and a 7% posterior probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation reduced the odds of death or requirement for organ support. No treatment strategy met prespecified stopping criteria before trial closure, precluding definitive conclusions. (Funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council or Medical Research Future Fund Investigator and Practitioner Grants and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04483960.)

Regulatory Frameworks for Clinical Trial Data Sharing: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Although well recognized for its scientific value, data sharing from clinical trials remains limited. Steps toward harmonization and standardization are increasing in various pockets of the global scientific community. This issue has gained salience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even for agencies willing to share data, data exclusivity practices complicate matters; strict regulations by funders affect this even further. Finally, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have weaker institutional mechanisms. This complex of factors hampers research and rapid response during public health emergencies. This drew our attention to the need for a review of the regulatory landscape governing clinical trial data sharing. OBJECTIVE: This review seeks to identify regulatory frameworks and policies that govern clinical trial data sharing and explore key elements of data-sharing mechanisms as outlined in existing regulatory documents. Following from, and based on, this empirical analysis of gaps in existing policy frameworks, we aimed to suggest focal areas for policy interventions on a systematic basis to facilitate clinical trial data sharing. METHODS: We followed the JBI scoping review approach. Our review covered electronic databases and relevant gray literature through a targeted web search. We included records (all publication types, except for conference abstracts) available in English that describe clinical trial data-sharing policies, guidelines, or standard operating procedures. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 authors, and findings were summarized using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We identified 4 articles and 13 policy documents; none originated from LMICs. Most (11/17, 65%) of the clinical trial agencies mandated a data-sharing agreement; 47% (8/17) of these policies required informed consent by trial participants; and 71% (12/17) outlined requirements for a data-sharing proposal review committee. Data-sharing policies have, a priori, milestone-based timelines when clinical trial data can be shared. We classify clinical trial agencies as following either controlled- or open-access data-sharing models. Incentives to promote data sharing and distinctions between mandated requirements and supportive requirements for informed consent during the data-sharing process remain gray areas, needing explication. To augment participant privacy and confidentiality, a neutral institutional mechanism to oversee dissemination of information from the appropriate data sets and more policy interventions led by LMICs to facilitate data sharing are strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Our review outlines the immediate need for developing a pragmatic data-sharing mechanism that aims to improve research and innovations as well as facilitate cross-border collaborations. Although a one-policy-fits-all approach would not account for regional and subnational legislation, we suggest that a focus on key elements of data-sharing mechanisms can be used to inform the development of flexible yet comprehensive data-sharing policies so that institutional mechanisms rather than disparate efforts guide data generation, which is the foundation of all scientific endeavor.