Characteristics of published/registered clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, many countries have designed clinical trials to find efficient treatments. We aimed to critically report the characteristics of all the registered and published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on COVID-19, and summarize the evaluation of potential therapies developed in various regions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases to retrieve all the relevant studies up to July 19, 2021, in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart. We included all English-language published/registered RCTs on COVID-19, and excluded non-RCT, in-vitro/in-vivo, editorials, and review studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated all the records, and then analyzed by using SPSS 17. RESULTS: Within 3018 included studies, 2801 (92.8%) and 217 (7.2%) were registered or published RCTs consisting of about 600 synthetic drugs. Herbal medicines have been studied in 23 trials (10.6%) among the published RCTs and in 357 registered RCTs (12.7%). Hydroxychloroquine 23 (10.6%) and convalescent plasma 194 (6.9%) alone or in combination with other agents were the most frequently used interventions in published and registered RCTs, respectively. Most published RCTs have been conducted in Western Pacific Region (WPRO) (50 trials, 23.0%) including 45 trials from China. Also, a greater proportion of registered RCTs have been conducted in the Region of the Americas (PAHO) (885 trials, 31.6%) including 596 RCTs from the United States (U.S). Globally, 283 registered trials have been conducted to assess new developed vaccines for COVID or previously established for other disorders. CONCLUSION: The present study highlighted the wide range of potential therapeutic agents in published and registered COVID-19 clinical trials across a wide range of regions. However, it is urgently required to global coordination in order to conduct more well-designed trials and progress in discovering safe and effective treatments.

Scheduling of new psychoactive substance the Swiss way: A review and critical analysis.

Since the introduction of the European Early Warning System in 2005, >700 new psychoactive substances (NPS) have been listed. This review article presents for the first time the Swiss narcotic law in perspective of scheduling of NPS, and compares it to the regulations of the German speaking neighbours Austria and Germany. The Swiss way is a fast and effective way for scheduling NPS, with the purpose to restrict drug trafficking and for controlling the NPS drug market: the legal basis for scheduling substances of abuse is the "Law about narcotics and psychotropic substances" (BetmG, SR 812.121), which includes the "narcotic law directory (BetmVV-EDI, SR 812.121.11) suitable for listing all controlled substances. The BetmVV-EDI, SR 812.121.11 contains seven indices, with index e specifically designed for the fast scheduling of NPS. Newly appearing NPS can either be controlled under a structure analogues definition or by listing single substances. The list of single substances is updated at least once per year, and structure analogues definitions can be implemented, in order to keep track with new developments on the NPS market. The latest version from November 30th 2018 contains ten different structure analogue definitions and 207 single substances. Requirements to list NPS are their appearance on the NPS market, suspected psychotropic effects and their suggestions by Forensic professionals. As soon as substances are newly placed, on Schedule I of the 1961 Convention or Schedule II of the 1971 Convention by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the World Health Organization they can easily be transferred from index e to index a-d of the BetmVV-EDI, SR 812.121.11. The Austrian law uses a structure analogue and single substances approach (introduced in 2012, one update in 2016), whereas the German NPS law (established in 2016, no update yet) only lists two structure-analogue-definitions. All three legislations have defined which core structures, kinds and sites of substitutions are regulated.