4.3 Article

Totality of evidence of the effectiveness of repurposed therapies for COVID-19: Can we use real-world studies alongside randomized controlled trials?

期刊

CTS-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1842-1855

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cts.13591

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid and robust strategies that include large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and well-designed observational real-world studies (RWS) are necessary to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of pharmacotherapeutic interventions in future pandemics. The results of a study analyzing the data from COVID-19 RCTs and RWS suggest that large RCTs provide more accurate conclusions about the clinical benefits of treatments, while RWS tend to yield more varied results. Therefore, in future pandemics, prioritizing large RCTs, improving the design and data matching of RWS, enhancing reporting standards, and promoting access to patient-level data are crucial for evaluating therapies.
Rapid and robust strategies to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of novel and existing pharmacotherapeutic interventions (repurposed treatments) in future pandemics are required. Observational real-world studies (RWS) can report more quickly than randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and would have value were they to yield reliable results. Both RCTs and RWS were deployed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Comparing results between them offers a unique opportunity to determine the potential value and contribution of each. A learning review of these parallel evidence channels in COVID-19, based on quantitative modeling, can help improve speed and reliability in the evaluation of repurposed therapeutics in a future pandemic. Analysis of all-cause mortality data from 249 observational RWS and RCTs across eight treatment regimens for COVID-19 showed that RWS yield more heterogeneous results, and generally overestimate the effect size subsequently seen in RCTs. This is explained in part by a few study factors: the presence of RWS that are imbalanced for age, gender, and disease severity, and those reporting mortality at 2 weeks or less. Smaller studies of either type contributed negligibly. Analysis of evidence generated sequentially during the pandemic indicated that larger RCTs drive our ability to make conclusive decisions regarding clinical benefit of each treatment, with limited inference drawn from RWS. These results suggest that when evaluating therapies in future pandemics, (1) large RCTs, especially platform studies, be deployed early; (2) any RWS should be large and should have adequate matching of known confounders and long follow-up; (3) reporting standards and data standards for primary endpoints, explanatory factors, and key subgroups should be improved; in addition, (4) appropriate incentives should be in place to enable access to patient-level data; and (5) an overall aggregate view of all available results should be available at any given time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据