Search

BACKGROUND: the Covid-19 pandemic has provoked a huge of clinical and epidemiological research initiatives, especially in the most involved countries. However, this very large effort was characterized by several methodological weaknesses, both in the field of discovering effective treatments (with too many small and uncontrolled trials) and in the field of identifying preventable risks and prognostic factors (with too few large, representative and well-designed cohorts orcase-control studies). OBJECTIVES: in response to the fragmented and uncoordinatedresearch production on Covid-19, the italian Association of Epidemiology (AIE) stimulated the formation of a working group (WG) with the aims of identifying the most important gaps in knowledge and to propose a structured research agenda of clinical and epidemiological studies considered at high priority on Covid-19, including recommendations on the preferable methodology. METHODS: the WG was composed by 25 subjects, mainly epidemiologists, statisticians, and other experts in specific fields, who have voluntarily agreed to the proposal. The agreement on a list of main research questions and on the structure of the specific documents to be produced were defined through few meetings and cycles of document exchanges. RESULTS: twelve main research questions on Covid-19 were identified, covering aetiology, prognosis,interventions, follow-up and impact on general and specific populations (children, pregnant women). For each of them, a two-page form was developed, structured in: background, main topics, methods (with recommendations on preferred study design and warnings for bias prevention) and an essential bibliography. CONCLUSIONS: this research agenda represents an initial contribution to direct clinical and epidemiological research efforts on high priority topics with a focus on methodological aspects. Further development and refinements of this agenda by Public Health Authorities are encouraged.

Insulin analogues are increasingly used in patients with type 2 diabetes. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the role of insulin analogues to reach different hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets (from 6.5% to 8%) in type 2 diabetic patients.RCTs involving insulin regimens (basal, prandial, biphasic, and basal-bolus) with insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library) through August 2010. We included any study arm of RCTs if they were at least 12 weeks in duration, and reported HbA1c as an outcome and the proportion of diabetic patients reaching the HbA1c target of7%. The proportion of patients with HbA1c6.5%,7.0%,7.5%, and8.0% was estimated using mean and standard deviation of HbA1c at the end of treatment.We identified 53 RCTs, with 92 arms, and 32,689 patients. The proportion of patients at target was highest with the basal-bolus regimen, and ranged from 27.8% (95% CI, 22.2-34%) for the HbA1c target6.5% to 88% (CI 83-92%) for the HbA1c target8%. Biphasic insulin regimen ranked second at any HbA1c target, while prandial and basal regimens alternated across different HbA1c targets.At any HbA1c target, basal-bolus insulin regimens with insulin analogues obtained the best results, which may be useful for detailing the best treatment effect in individual patients.