Definitions of digital biomarkers: a systematic mapping of the biomedical literature.

BACKGROUND: Technological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on 'digital biomarkers,' covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research. METHODS: We analysed all articles in PubMed that used 'digital biomarker(s)' in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of 'digital biomarkers' mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses. RESULTS: We identified 415 articles using 'digital biomarker' between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition.

Clinical trial evidence of quality-of-life effects of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a systematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patients, clinicians, and regulators call for more evidence on the impact of innovative medicines on quality of life (QoL). We assessed the effects of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on QoL in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). METHODS: Randomized trials assessing approved DMTs in PwMS with results for at least one outcome referred to as "quality of life" were searched in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: We identified 38 trials published between 1999 and 2023 with a median of 531 participants (interquartile range (IQR) 202 to 941; total 23,225). The evaluated DMTs were mostly interferon-beta (n = 10; 26%), fingolimod (n = 7; 18%), natalizumab (n = 5; 13%), and glatiramer acetate (n = 4; 11%). The 38 trials used 18 different QoL instruments, with up to 11 QoL subscale measures per trial (median 2; IQR 1-3). QoL was never the single primary outcome. We identified quantitative QoL results in 24 trials (63%), and narrative statements in 15 trials (39%). In 16 trials (42%), at least one of the multiple QoL results was statistically significant. The effect sizes of the significant quantitative QoL results were large (median Cohen's d 1.02; IQR 0.3-1.7; median Hedges' g 1.01; IQR 0.3-1.69) and ranged between d 0.14 and 2.91. CONCLUSIONS: Certain DMTs have the potential to positively impact QoL of PwMS, and the assessment and reporting of QoL is suboptimal with a multitude of diverse instruments being used. There is an urgent need that design and reporting of clinical trials reflect the critical importance of QoL for PwMS.

Effect of dulaglutide in promoting abstinence during smoking cessation: 12-month follow-up of a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

Background: Smoking cessation is challenging, despite making use of established smoking cessation therapies. Preclinical studies and one clinical pilot study suggest the antidiabetic drug glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue to modulate addictive behaviours and nicotine craving. Previously, we reported the short-term results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Herein we report long-term abstinence rates and weight developments after 24 and 52 weeks. Methods: This single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial was done at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) individuals with at least a moderate nicotine dependence willing to quit smoking to either a 12-week treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo subcutaneously once weekly in addition to standard of care smoking cessation therapy (varenicline 2 mg/day and behavioural counselling). After 12 weeks, dulaglutide or placebo injections were discontinued and the participants were followed up at week 24 and 52. The primary outcome of self-reported and biochemically confirmed point prevalence abstinence rate, and secondary outcome of secondary outcome of weight change were assessed at weeks 24 and 52. All participants who received one dose of the study drug were included in the intention to treat set and participants who received at least 10/12 doses of the study drug formed the per protocol set. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03204396. Findings: Of the 255 participants who were randomly assigned between June 22, 2017 and December 3, 2020, 63% (80/127) (dulaglutide group) and 65% (83/128) (placebo group) were abstinent after 12 weeks. These abstinence rates declined to 43% (54/127) and 41% (52/128), respectively, after 24 weeks and to 32% (41/127) and 32% (41/128), respectively, after 52 weeks. Post-cessation weight gain was prevented in the dulaglutide group (-1.0 kg, standard deviation [SD] 2.7) as opposed to the placebo group (+1.9 kg, SD 2.4) after 12 weeks. However, at week 24, increases in weight from baseline were observed in both groups (median, interquartile range [IQR]: dulaglutide: +1.5 kg, [-0.4, 4.1], placebo: +3.0 kg, [0.6, 4.6], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change -1.0 kg (97.5% CI [-2.16, 0.16])), and at week 52 the groups showed similar weight gain (median, IQR: dulaglutide: +2.8 kg [-0.4, 4.7], placebo: +3.1 kg [-0.4, 6.0], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change: -0.35 kg (95% CI [-1.72, 1.01])). In the follow-up period (week 12 to week 52) 51 (51%) and 48 (48%) treatment-unrelated adverse events were recorded in the dulaglutide and the placebo group, respectively. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Interpretation: Dulaglutide does not improve long-term smoking abstinence, but has potential to counteract weight gain after quitting. However, 3 months of treatment did not have a sustained beneficial effect on weight at 1 year. As post-cessation weight gain is highest in the first year after quitting smoking, future studies should consider a longer treatment duration with a GLP-1 analogue in abstinent individuals. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Hemmi-Foundation, the University of Basel, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.

Use of pragmatic randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: A systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are increasingly recognized for providing real-world evidence on treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the use and characteristics of pragmatic trials in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Systematic literature search and analysis of pragmatic trials on any intervention published up to 2022. The assessment of pragmatism with PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is performed. RESULTS: We identified 48 pragmatic trials published 1967-2022 that included a median of 82 participants (interquartile range (IQR) = 42-160) to assess typically supportive care interventions (n = 41; 85%). Only seven trials assessed drugs (15%). Only three trials (6%) included >500 participants. Trials were mostly from the United Kingdom (n = 18; 38%), Italy (n = 6; 13%), the United States and Denmark (each n = 5; 10%). Primary outcomes were diverse, for example, quality-of-life, physical functioning, or disease activity. Only 1 trial (2%) used routinely collected data for outcome ascertainment. No trial was very pragmatic in all design aspects, but 14 trials (29%) were widely pragmatic (i.e. PRECIS-2 score ⩾ 4/5 in all domains). CONCLUSION: Only few and mostly small pragmatic trials exist in MS which rarely assess drugs. Despite the widely available routine data infrastructures, very few trials utilize them. There is an urgent need to leverage the potential of this pioneering study design to provide useful randomized real-world evidence.

Frequency of multiple changes to prespecified primary outcomes of clinical trials completed between 2009 and 2017 in German university medical centers: A meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial registries allow assessment of deviations of published trials from their protocol, which may indicate a considerable risk of bias. However, since entries in many registries can be updated at any time, deviations may go unnoticed. We aimed to assess the frequency of changes to primary outcomes in different historical versions of registry entries, and how often they would go unnoticed if only deviations between published trial reports and the most recent registry entry are assessed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed the complete history of changes of registry entries in all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, with published results up to 2022, that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German WHO primary registry (German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS). Data were retrieved on 24 January 2022. We assessed deviations between registry entries and publications in a random subsample of 292 trials. We determined changes of primary outcomes (1) between different versions of registry entries at key trial milestones, (2) between the latest registry entry version and the results publication, and (3) changes that occurred after trial start with no change between latest registry entry version and publication (so that assessing the full history of changes is required for detection of changes). We categorized changes as major if primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. We also assessed (4) the proportion of publications transparently reporting changes and (5) characteristics associated with changes. Of all 1746 trials, 23% (n = 393) had a primary outcome change between trial start and latest registry entry version, with 8% (n = 142) being major changes, that is, primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials (120 of the 292 sampled trials; 95% confidence interval (CI) [35%, 47%]), with major changes in 18% (54 of 292; 95% CI [14%, 23%]). Overall, 55% of trials (161 of 292; 95% CI [49%, 61%]) had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial, with 23% of trials (67 of 292; 95% CI [18%, 28%]) having major changes. Changes only within registry records, with no apparent discrepancy between latest registry entry version and publication, were observed in 14% of trials (41 of 292; 95% CI [10%, 19%]), with 4% (13 of 292; 95% CI [2%, 7%]) being major changes. One percent of trials with a change reported this in their publication (2 of 161 trials; 95% CI [0%, 4%]). An exploratory logistic regression analysis indicated that trials were less likely to have a discrepant registry entry if they were registered more recently (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% CI [0.69, 0.80]; p<0.001), were not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (OR 0.41; 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]; p = 0.002), or were not industry-sponsored (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]; p<0.001). Key limitations include some degree of subjectivity in the categorization of outcome changes and inclusion of a single geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that changes to primary outcomes occur in 55% of trials, with 23% trials having major changes. They are rarely transparently reported in the results publication and often not visible in the latest registry entry version. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to make these changes more easily recognizable. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/t3qva; amendment in https://osf.io/qtd2b).

Meta-research on pragmatism of randomized trials: rationale and design of the PragMeta database.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials provide decision-oriented, real-world evidence that is highly applicable and generalizable. The interest in real-world evidence is fueled by the assumption that effects in the "real-world" are different to effects obtained under artificial, controlled, research conditions as often used for traditional explanatory trials. However, it is unknown which features of pragmatism, generalizability, and applicability would be responsible for such differences. There is a need to provide empirical evidence and promote meta-research to answer these fundamental questions on the pragmatism of randomized trials and real-world evidence. Here, we describe the rationale and design of the PragMeta database which pursues this goal ( www.PragMeta.org ). METHODS: PragMeta is a non-commercial, open data platform and infrastructure to facilitate research on pragmatic trials. It collects and shares data from published randomized trials that either have a specific design feature or other characteristic related to pragmatism or they form clusters of trials addressing the same research question but having different aspects of pragmatism. This lays the foundation to determine the relationship of various features of pragmatism, generalizability, and applicability with intervention effects or other trial characteristics. The database contains trial data actively collected for PragMeta but also allows to import and link existing datasets of trials collected for other purposes, forming a large-scale meta-database. PragMeta captures data on (1) trial and design characteristics (e.g., sample size, population, intervention/comparison, outcome, longitudinal structure, blinding), (2) effects estimates, and (3) various determinants of pragmatism (e.g., the use of routinely collected data) and ratings from established tools used to determine pragmatism (e.g., the PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2; PRECIS-2). PragMeta is continuously provided online, inviting the meta-research community to collaborate, contribute, and/or use the database. As of April 2023, PragMeta contains data from > 700 trials, mostly with assessments on pragmatism. CONCLUSIONS: PragMeta will inform a better understanding of pragmatism and the generation and interpretation of real-world evidence.

Meta-epidemiological review identified variable reporting and handling of time-to-event analyses in publications of trials included in meta-analyses of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Previous findings indicate limited reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event (TTE) outcomes. We assessed corresponding available information in trial publications included in such meta-analyses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We extracted data from all randomized trials in pairwise, hazard ratio (HR)-based meta-analyses of primary outcomes and overall survival of 50 systematic reviews systematically identified from the Cochrane Database and Core Clinical Journals. Data on methods and characteristics relevant for TTE analysis of reviews, trials, and outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: Meta-analyses included 235 trials with 315 trial analyses. Most prominently assessed was overall survival (91%). Definitions (61%), censoring reasons (41%), and follow-up specifications (56%) for trial outcomes were often missing. Available TTE data per trial were most frequently survival curves (83%), log-rank P values (76%), and HRs (72%). When trial TTE data recalculation was reported, reviews mostly specified HRs or P values (each 5%). Reviews primarily included intention-to-treat analyses (64%) and analyses not adjusted for covariates (25%). Except for missing outcome data, TTE-relevant trial characteristics, for example, informative censoring, treatment switching, and proportional hazards, were sporadically addressed in trial publications. Reporting limitations in trial publications translate to the review level. CONCLUSION: TTE (meta)-analyses, in trial and review publications, need clear reporting standards.

GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of evidence when study interventions or comparators differ from PICO targets.

OBJECTIVES: This Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept article offers systematic reviewers, guideline authors, and other users of evidence assistance in addressing randomized trial situations in which interventions or comparators differ from those in the target people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. To clarify what GRADE considers under indirectness of interventions and comparators, we focus on a particular example: when comparator arm participants receive some or all aspects of the intervention management strategy (treatment switching). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An interdisciplinary panel of the GRADE working group members developed this concept article through an iterative review of examples in multiple teleconferences, small group sessions, and e-mail correspondence. After presentation at a GRADE working group meeting in November 2022, attendees approved the final concept paper, which we support with examples from systematic reviews and individual trials. RESULTS: In the presence of safeguards against risk of bias, trials provide unbiased estimates of the effect of an intervention on the people as enrolled, the interventions as implemented, the comparators as implemented, and the outcomes as measured. Within the GRADE framework, differences in the people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes elements between the review or guideline recommendation targets and the trials as implemented constitute issues of indirectness. The intervention or comparator group management strategy as implemented, when it differs from the target comparator, constitutes one potential source of indirectness: Indirectness of interventions and comparators-comparator group receipt of the intervention constitutes a specific subcategory of said indirectness. The proportion of comparator arm participants that received the intervention and the apparent magnitude of effect bear on whether one should rate down, and if one does, to what extent. CONCLUSION: Treatment switching and other differences between review or guideline recommendation target interventions and comparators vs. interventions and comparators as implemented in otherwise relevant trials are best considered issues of indirectness.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues: a new way to quit smoking? (SKIP)-a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death. Despite dedicated programmes, quit rates remain low due to barriers such as nicotine withdrawal syndrome or post-cessation weight gain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues reduce energy intake and body weight and seem to modulate addictive behaviour. These GLP-1 properties are of major interest in the context of smoking cessation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the GLP-1 analogue dulaglutide as a new therapy for smoking cessation. METHODS: This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, superiority, single-centre randomized study including 255 patients. The intervention consists of a 12-week dulaglutide treatment phase with 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo subcutaneously, in addition to standard of care (behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy with varenicline). A 40-week non-treatment phase follows. The primary outcome is the point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12. Smoking status is self-reported and biochemically confirmed by end-expiratory exhaled carbon monoxide measurement. Further endpoints include post-cessational weight gain, nicotine craving analysis, glucose homeostasis and long-term nicotine abstinence. Two separate substudies assess behavioural, functional and structural changes by functional magnetic resonance imaging and measures of energy metabolism (i.e. resting energy expenditure, body composition). DISCUSSION: Combining behavioural counselling and medical therapy, e.g. with varenicline, improves abstinence rates and is considered the standard of care. We expect a further increase in quit rates by adding a second component of medical therapy and assume a dual effect of dulaglutide treatment (blunting nicotine withdrawal symptoms and reducing post-cessational weight gain). This project is of high relevance as it explores novel treatment options aimed at preventing the disastrous consequences of nicotine consumption and obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03204396 . Registered on June 26, 2017.

Effect of dulaglutide in promoting abstinence during smoking cessation: a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

Background: Quitting smoking is difficult due to barriers such as craving for cigarettes and post-cessation weight gain. Recent experimental data suggest a role of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) in the pathophysiology of addiction in addition to appetite regulation and weight control. We hypothesized that a pharmacological intervention with the GLP-1 analogue dulaglutide during smoking cessation may improve abstinence rates and reduce post-cessation weight gain. Methods: This is a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, superiority study conducted in the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. We included adult smokers with at least moderate cigarette dependence who wanted to quit. Participants were randomly assigned to a 12-week treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo subcutaneously in addition to standard of care including behavioural counselling and oral varenicline pharmacotherapy of 2 mg/day. The primary outcome was self-reported and biochemically confirmed point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12. Secondary outcomes included post-cessation weight, glucose metabolism, and craving for smoking. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary and safety analyses. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03204396). Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and December 3, 2020, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to each group (127 in the dulaglutide group and 128 in the placebo group). After 12 weeks, 63% (80/127) participants on dulaglutide and 65% (83/128) on placebo treatment were abstinent (difference in proportions -1.9% [95% Confidence interval (CI) -10.7, 14.4], p-value (p) = 0.859). Dulaglutide decreased post-cessation weight (-1 kg [standard deviation (SD) 2.7]), while weight increased on placebo (+1.9 kg [SD 2.4]). The baseline-adjusted difference in weight change between groups was -2.9 kg (95% CI -3.59, -2.3, p < 0.001). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level declined on dulaglutide treatment (baseline-adjusted median difference in HbA1c between groups -0.25% [interquartile range (IQR) -0.36, -0.14], p < 0.001). Craving for smoking declined during treatment without any difference between the groups. Treatment-emergent gastrointestinal symptoms were very common in both groups: 90% (114/127) of participants on dulaglutide and 81% (81/128) on placebo). Interpretation: Dulaglutide had no effect on abstinence rates but prevented post-cessation weight gain and decreased HbA1c levels. GLP-1 analogues may play a role in future cessation therapy targeting metabolic parameters such as weight and glucose metabolism. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, the Gottfried Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Hemmi-Foundation, the University of Basel, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Robustness of reported postacute health outcomes in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children. METHODS: A search on PubMed and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies published up to 22 January 2022 that reported on postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children (<18 years) with follow-up of ≥2 months since detection of infection or ≥1 month since recovery from acute illness. We assessed the consideration of confounding bias and causality, as well as the risk of bias. RESULTS: 21 studies including 81 896 children reported up to 97 symptoms with follow-up periods of 2.0-11.5 months. Fifteen studies had no control group. The reported proportion of children with post-COVID syndrome was between 0% and 66.5% in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=16 986) and between 2.0% and 53.3% in children without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=64 910). Only two studies made a clear causal interpretation of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the main outcome of 'post-COVID syndrome' and provided recommendations regarding prevention measures. The robustness of all 21 studies was seriously limited due to an overall critical risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children is seriously limited, at least in all the published articles we could identify. None of the studies provided evidence with reasonable certainty on whether SARS-CoV-2 infection has an impact on postacute health outcomes, let alone to what extent. Children and their families urgently need much more reliable and methodologically robust evidence to address their concerns and improve care.

Effect of Wearing Glasses on Risk of Infection With SARS-CoV-2 in the Community: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Observational studies have reported an association between the use of eye protection and reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but, as with most infection control measures, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of wearing glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in Norway from February 2 to April 24, 2022; all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19, and did not have COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks were eligible. Intervention: Wearing glasses (eg, sunglasses) when close to others in public spaces for 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test result reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. Secondary outcomes included a positive COVID-19 test result and respiratory infection based on self-report. All analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 3717 adults (2439 women [65.6%]; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [15.1] years) were randomized. All were identified and followed up in the registries, and 3231 (86.9%) responded to the end of study questionnaire. The proportions with a reported positive COVID-19 test result in the national registry were 3.7% (68 of 1852) in the intervention group and 3.5% (65 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report were 9.6% (177 of 1852) in the intervention group and 11.5% (214 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (30.8% [571 of 1852]) than in the control group (34.1% [636 of 1865]; absolute risk difference, -3.3%; 95% CI, -6.3% to -0.3%; relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, wearing glasses in the community was not protective regarding the primary outcome of a reported positive COVID-19 test. However, results were limited by a small sample size and other issues. Glasses may be worth considering as one component in infection control, pending further studies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05217797.

Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 - the first two years in Germany and beyond.

BACKGROUND: We have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany. METHODS: We reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE). RESULTS: Two years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50%) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials; 18%), Iran (619 trials; 13%), India (566 trials; 12%), China (353 trials; 8%), and Spain (309 trials; 7%). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5% of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15% (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

Central diabetes insipidus from a patient's perspective: management, psychological co-morbidities, and renaming of the condition: results from an international web-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Central diabetes insipidus is a rare neuroendocrine condition. Data on treatment-associated side-effects, psychological comorbidities, and incorrect management are scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' perspectives on their disease. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional, web-based, anonymous survey, developed by endocrinologists and patient representatives, to collect the opinions of patients with central diabetes insipidus on management and complications of their disease, psychological comorbidities, degree of knowledge and awareness of the condition among health-care professionals, and renaming the disease to avoid confusion with diabetes mellitus (diabetes). FINDINGS: Between Aug 23, 2021, and Feb 7, 2022, 1034 patients with central diabetes insipidus participated in the survey. 91 (9%) participants were children and adolescents (37 [41%] girls and 54 [59%] boys; median age 10 years [IQR 6-15]) and 943 (91%) were adults (757 [80%] women and 186 [20%] men]; median age 44 years [34-54]). 488 (47%) participants had isolated posterior pituitary dysfunction and 546 (53%) had combined anterior and posterior pituitary dysfunction. Main aetiologies were idiopathic (315 [30%] of 1034 participants) and tumours and cysts (pre-surgical 217 [21%]; post-surgical 254 [25%]). 260 (26%; 95% CI [0·23-0·29]) of 994 patients on desmopressin therapy had hyponatraemia leading to hospitalisation. Patients who routinely omitted or delayed desmopressin to allow intermittent aquaresis had a significantly lower prevalence of hyponatraemia compared with those not aware of this approach (odds ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·39-0·77]; p=0·0006). Of patients who had to be hospitalised for any medical reason, 71 (13%; 95% CI 0·10-0·16) of 535 patients did not receive desmopressin while in a fasting state (nil by mouth) without intravenous fluid replacement and reported symptoms of dehydration. 660 (64%; 0·61-0·67) participants reported lower quality of life, and 369 (36%; 0·33-0·39) had psychological changes subjectively associated with their central diabetes insipidus. 823 (80%; 0·77-0·82) participants encountered a situation where central diabetes insipidus was confused with diabetes mellitus (diabetes) by health-care professionals. 884 (85%; 0·83-0·88) participants supported renaming the disease; the most favoured alternative names were vasopressin deficiency and arginine vasopressin deficiency. INTERPRETATION: This is the largest survey of patients with central diabetes insipidus, reporting a high prevalence of treatment-associated side-effects, mismanagement during hospitalisation, psychological comorbidities, and a clear support for renaming the disease. Our data are the first to indicate the value of routinely omitting or delaying desmopressin. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, and G&J Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation.

Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases. METHODS: In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references. RESULTS: Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references. CONCLUSION: Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used.