Search

Abstract Background Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics. Methods This study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Results A total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60–200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94–366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low. Conclusions Intensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future.

Purpose: Definitive antiviral treatment is not available for COVID-19 infection, with the exception of remdesivir, which still evokes many doubts. Various monotherapy or combination therapies with antivirals or other agents have been tried. The present study aims to evaluate the therapeutic potential of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir–ritonavir in combination with ribavirin in mild–severe COVID-19. Patients and Methods: A single-center, open-label, parallel-arm, stratified randomized controlled trial evaluated the therapeutic potential of combination antiviral therapies. Enrolled patients in the severe category were randomized into three groups: (A) standard treatment, (B) hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin+standard treatment, or (C) lopinavir+ritonavir+ribavirin+standard treatment; while the non-severe category comprised two groups: (A) standard treatment or (B) hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin. Combination antivirals were given for 10 days and followed for 28 days. The primary endpoints were safety, symptomatic and laboratory recovery of organ dysfunctions, and time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative report. Results: In total, 111 patients were randomized: 24, 23, and 24 in severe categories A, B, and C, respectively, and 20 in each of the non-severe groups. Two patients receiving ribavirin experienced drug induced liver injury, and another developed QT prolongation after hydroxychloroquine. In the severe category, 47.6%, 55%, and 30.09% in A, B, and C groups, respectively, showed symptomatic recovery, compared to 93.3% and 86.7% in A and B groups, respectively, in the non-severe category at 72 hours (P 0.05). Conclusion: Though the results failed to show statistical superiority of the antiviral combination therapies to that of the standard therapy in both the severe and non-severe categories in symptomatic adult patients of COVID-19 due to very small sized trial, clinically hydroxychloroquine+ribavirin therapy is showing better recovery by 7.4% than standard therapy in the former category. However, results do indicate the benefit of standard therapy in the non-severe category by 6.6%. Furthermore, the dose of ribavirin needs to be reconsidered in the Indian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics.Methods: This study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias.Results: A total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60-200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94-366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low.Conclusions: Intensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]