Search

Background: Many available medicines have been evaluated as potential repurposed treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We summarise the registered study landscape for 32 priority pharmacological treatments identified following consultation with external experts of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition. Methods: All eligible trial registry records identified by systematic searches of the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as of 26th May 2021 were reviewed and extracted. A descriptive summary of study characteristics was performed. Results: We identified 1,314 registered studies that included at least one of the 32 priority pharmacological interventions. The majority (1,043, 79%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The sample size of the RCTs identified was typically small (median (25th, 75th percentile) sample size = 140 patients (70, 383)), i.e. individually powered only to show very large effects. The most extensively evaluated medicine was hydroxychloroquine (418 registered studies). Other widely studied interventions were convalescent plasma (n=208), ritonavir (n=189) usually combined with lopinavir (n=181), and azithromycin (n=147). Very few RCTs planned to recruit participants in low-income countries (n=14; 1.3%). A minority of studies (348, 26%) indicated a willingness to share individual participant data. The living systematic review data are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city Conclusions: There are many registered studies planning to evaluate available medicines as potential repurposed treatments of COVID-19. Most of these planned studies are small, and therefore substantially underpowered for most relevant endpoints. Very few are large enough to have any chance of providing enough convincing evidence to change policies and practices. The sharing of individual participant data (IPD) from these studies would allow pooled IPD meta-analyses which could generate definitive conclusions, but most registered studies did not indicate that they were willing to share their data.

Background Malaria in the first trimester of pregnancy is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are a highly effective, first-line treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria, except in the first trimester of pregnancy, when quinine with clindamycin is recommended due to concerns about the potential embryotoxicity of artemisinins. We compared adverse pregnancy outcomes after artemisinin-based treatment (ABT) versus non-ABTs in the first trimester of pregnancy. Methods For this systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Malaria in Pregnancy Library for prospective cohort studies published between Nov 1, 2015, and Dec 21, 2021, containing data on outcomes of pregnancies exposed to ABT and non-ABT in the first trimester. The results of this search were added to those of a previous systematic review that included publications published up until November, 2015. We included pregnancies enrolled before the pregnancy outcome was known. We excluded pregnancies with missing estimated gestational age or exposure information, multiple gestation pregnancies, and if the fetus was confirmed to be unviable before antimalarial treatment. The primary endpoint was adverse pregnancy outcome, defined as a composite of either miscarriage, stillbirth, or major congenital anomalies. A one-stage IPD meta-analysis was done by use of shared-frailty Cox models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015032371. Findings We identified seven eligible studies that included 12 cohorts. All 12 cohorts contributed IPD, including 34 178 pregnancies, 737 with confirmed first-trimester exposure to ABTs and 1076 with confirmed first-trimester exposure to non-ABTs. Adverse pregnancy outcomes occurred in 42 (5·7%) of 736 ABT-exposed pregnancies compared with 96 (8·9%) of 1074 non-ABT-exposed pregnancies in the first trimester (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·49–1·03). Similar results were seen for the individual components of miscarriage (aHR=0·74, 0·47–1·17), stillbirth (aHR=0·71, 0·32–1·57), and major congenital anomalies (aHR=0·60, 0·13–2·87). The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes was lower with artemether–lumefantrine than with oral quinine in the first trimester of pregnancy (25 [4·8%] of 524 vs 84 [9·2%] of 915; aHR 0·58, 0·36–0·92). Interpretation We found no evidence of embryotoxicity or teratogenicity based on the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, or major congenital anomalies associated with ABT during the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that treatment with artemether–lumefantrine was associated with fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes than quinine, and because of the known superior tolerability and antimalarial effectiveness of ACTs, artemether–lumefantrine should be considered the preferred treatment for uncomplicated P falciparum malaria in the first trimester. If artemether–lumefantrine is unavailable, other ACTs (except artesunate–sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine) should be preferred to quinine. Continued active pharmacovigilance is warranted. Funding Medicines for Malaria Venture, WHO, and the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background For the results of clinical trials to have external validity, the patients included in the study must be representative of the population presenting in the general clinical settings. A scoping literature review was performed to evaluate how the eligibility criteria used in anti-malarial efficacy and safety trials translate into patient selection. Methods A search of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) Clinical Trials Publication Library, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted to identify trials investigating anti-malarial efficacy and safety, published between 14th April 2001 and 31st December 2017. An updated search using the WWARN Clinical Trial Publication Library was undertaken to identify eligible publications from 1st January 2018 to 31st July 2021. The review included studies in patients of any age with uncomplicated malaria and any pharmaceutical therapeutic intervention administered. The proportion of trials with malaria-positive patients excluded was calculated and linked to the reported reason for exclusion. A subgroup analysis on eligibility criteria and trial baseline demographics was conducted to assess whether criteria are complied with when recruiting patients. Results Out of 847 studies, 176 (21%) trials were included in the final synthesis, screening a total of 157,516 malaria-positive patients, of whom 56,293 (36%) were enrolled and treated. Across the 176 studies included, 84 different inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. The reason for exclusion of patients who tested positive for malaria was reported in 144 (82%) studies. Three criteria account for about 70% of malaria-positive patients excluded: mixed-species malaria infections or other specific Plasmodium species, parasite counts outside the set study ranges, and refusal of consent. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of the malaria-positive subjects who present to health facilities are systematically excluded from anti-malarial treatment trials. Reasons for exclusions are largely under-reported. Anti-malarial treatment in the general population is informed by studies on a narrow selection of patients who do not fully represent the totality of those seeking antimalarial treatment in routine practice. While entry criteria ensure consistency across trials, pragmatic trials are also necessary to supplement the information currently available and improve the external validity of the findings of malaria clinical trials.

Background Microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained blood films remains the reference standard for malaria parasite detection and quantification, but is undermined by difficulties in ensuring high-quality manual reading and inter-reader reliability. Automated parasite detection and quantification may address this issue. Methods A multi-centre, observational study was conducted during 2018 and 2019 at 11 sites to assess the performance of the EasyScan Go, a microscopy device employing machine-learning-based image analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of species detection and parasite density estimation were assessed with expert microscopy as the reference. Intra- and inter-device reliability of the device was also evaluated by comparing results from repeat reads on the same and two different devices. This study has been reported in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) checklist. Results In total, 2250 Giemsa-stained blood films were prepared and read independently by expert microscopists and the EasyScan Go device. The diagnostic sensitivity of EasyScan Go was 91.1% (95% CI 88.9–92.7), and specificity 75.6% (95% CI 73.1–78.0). With good quality slides sensitivity was similar (89.1%, 95%CI 86.2–91.5), but specificity increased to 85.1% (95%CI 82.6–87.4). Sensitivity increased with parasitaemia rising from 57% at 200–200,000 parasite/µL. Species were identified accurately in 93% of Plasmodium falciparum samples (kappa = 0.76, 95% CI 0.69–0.83), and in 92% of Plasmodium vivax samples (kappa = 0.73, 95% CI 0.66–0.80). Parasite density estimates by the EasyScan Go were within ± 25% of the microscopic reference counts in 23% of slides. Conclusions The performance of the EasyScan Go in parasite detection and species identification accuracy fulfil WHO-TDR Research Malaria Microscopy competence level 2 criteria. In terms of parasite quantification and false positive rate, it meets the level 4 WHO-TDR Research Malaria Microscopy criteria. All performance parameters were significantly affected by slide quality. Further software improvement is required to improve sensitivity at low parasitaemia and parasite density estimations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03512678.

Background Independent emergence and spread of artemisinin-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria have recently been confirmed in Africa, with molecular markers associated with artemisinin resistance increasingly detected. Surveillance to promptly detect and effectively respond to anti-malarial resistance is generally suboptimal in Africa, especially in low transmission settings where therapeutic efficacy studies are often not feasible due to recruitment challenges. However, these communities may be at higher risk of anti-malarial resistance. Methods From March 2018 to February 2020, a sequential mixed-methods study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the near-real-time linkage of individual patient anti-malarial resistance profiles with their case notifications and treatment response reports, and map these to fine scales in Nkomazi sub-district, Mpumalanga, a pre-elimination area in South Africa. Results Plasmodium falciparum molecular marker resistance profiles were linked to 55.1% (2636/4787) of notified malaria cases, 85% (2240/2636) of which were mapped to healthcare facility, ward and locality levels. Over time, linkage of individual malaria case demographic and molecular data increased to 75.1%. No artemisinin resistant validated/associated Kelch-13 mutations were detected in the 2385 PCR positive samples. Almost all 2812 samples assessed for lumefantrine susceptibility carried the wildtype mdr86ASN and crt76LYS alleles, potentially associated with decreased lumefantrine susceptibility. Conclusion Routine near-real-time mapping of molecular markers associated with anti-malarial drug resistance on a fine spatial scale provides a rapid and efficient early warning system for emerging resistance. The lessons learnt here could inform scale-up to provincial, national and regional malaria elimination programmes, and may be relevant for other antimicrobial resistance surveillance.

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.

Introduction: Noma (cancrum oris) is a devastating opportunistic infection resulting in severe tissue destruction that affects mouth and oro-facial structures. There are substantial gaps in our current knowledge and understanding of its aetiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment efficacy, as well as its distribution and burden. Although observed worldwide, the disease impacts the most vulnerable and marginalised populations, and is most reported in young children from sub-Saharan Africa. Noma often presents alongside conditions of extreme poverty, malnutrition and poor environmental sanitation. This protocol paper outlines the methodology for a systematic review planned to exhaustively synthesize the findings of the available noma literature. The project aims to generate an account of the present state of knowledge about the various aspects of noma to aid in framing effective strategies and interventions to curb this disease which disproportionately afflicts the poorest in society. Methods and analysis: The following databases have been searched by a medical librarian from database inception to 7 December 2022: OVID (MEDLINE/ Embase/ CAB abstracts/ Global Health), Scopus, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, African Journals Online: Health, French language search: Pascal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. All primary research studies reporting on patients of any age diagnosed with noma will be eligible for inclusion in the review, including clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, other observational studies, case studies and case series. Data will be extracted from included studies to analyse the current evidence-based knowledge on the distribution, risk factors, microbiology, prevention and treatment modalities, and outcomes of noma. Ethics and dissemination: Results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal upon completion. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019124839 (08/03/2019)

Background Plasmodium falciparum malaria remains a major public health concern in sub-Sahara Africa. Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) with amodiaquine + sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is one of the most important preventive interventions. Despite its implementation, the burden of malaria is still very high in children under five years old in Burkina Faso, suggesting that the expected impact of this promising strategy might not be attained. Development of innovative strategies to improve the efficacy of these existing malaria control measures is essential. In such context, we postulate that screening and treatment of malaria in household members of children receiving SMC could greatly improve the impact of SMC intervention and reduce malaria transmission in endemic settings. Methods This randomized superiority trial will be carried out in the Nanoro health district, Burkina Faso. The unit of randomisation will be the household and all eligible children from a household will be allocated to the same study group. Households with 3–59 months old children will be assigned to either (i) control group (SMC alone) or (ii) intervention (SMC+ screening of household members with standard Histidin Rich Protein Rapid Diagnostic Test (HRP2-RDT) and treatment if positive). The sample size will be 526 isolated households per arm, i.e., around 1052 children under SMC coverage and an expected 1315 household members. Included children will be followed-up for 24 months to fully cover two consecutive malaria transmission seasons and two SMC cycles. Children will be actively followed-up during the malaria transmission seasons while in the dry seasons the follow-up will be passive. Conclusion The study will respond to a major public health concern by providing evidence of the efficacy of an innovative strategy to boost the impact of SMC intervention.

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 (25th, 75th 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.

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website (COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.