so much work, so many lost opportunities

Mainoli, B., Machado, T., Duarte, G. S., Prada, L., Gonçalves, N., Ferreira, J. J., & Costa, J. (2021). Analysis of clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment clinical trials: so much work, so many lost opportunities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 1-10. [42]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01233-wBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on, and clinical research has been promoted worldwide. We aimed to assess the clinical and methodological characteristics of treatment clinical trials that have been set forth as an early response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: First, we reviewed all registered clinical trials on COVID-19. The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform and national trial registries were searched for COVID-19 trials through April 19th, 2020. For each record, independent researchers extracted interventions, participants, and methodological characteristics. Second, on September 14th, 2020 we evaluated the recruitment status and availability of the results of COVID-19 treatment trials previously identified. Results: In April 2020, a total of 580 trials evaluating COVID-19 treatment were registered. Reporting quality was poor (core participant information was missing in 24.1 to 92.7%). Between 54.0 and 93.8% of the trials did not plan to include older people or those with a higher baseline risk. Most studies were randomised (67.9%), single-centre (58.3%), non-industry-funded (81.1%), to be conducted in China (47.6%), with a median duration of 184 days and a median sample size of 100 participants. Core endpoints (mortality, clinical status, and hospitalization length) were planned to be assessed in 5.2 to 13.1% of the trials. Five months later, 66 trials (11.4%) were reported as “Completed”, and only 46 (7.9%) had public results available. One hundred forty-four of 580 trials (24.8%) either had the status “Not yet recruiting” or “Suspended”, and 18 (3.1%) trials were prematurely stopped (“Terminated” or “Withdrawn”) The number of completed trials and trials with results are much lower than anticipated, considering the planned follow-up. Conclusions: Our results raise concerns about the success of the initial global research effort on COVID-19 treatment. The clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment trials limit their capability to produce clear answers to critical questions in the shortest possible time.publishersversionpublishe

Placebo response in chronic peripheral neuropathic pain trials: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To estimate the magnitude of the placebo and nocebo responses in chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (CNP) and explore possible associations with trial characteristics. // Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2020. We included placebo-controlled RCTs of ≥8 weeks investigating first-line pharmacological interventions for CNP. Primary endpoints were the placebo response, the proportion of patients receiving placebo with pain intensity reduction (PIR) ≥30% from baseline, and the nocebo response, the proportion of patients receiving placebo experiencing adverse events (AEs). Screening, data extraction, and bias assessment (with the Cochrane risk of bias tool) were conducted by independent reviewers. We pooled data using a random-effects model. // Results: We included 50 trials, with a combined 5,693 participants allocated to placebo, conducted between 1998 and 2020. Overall, 38% of patients receiving placebo reported PIR≥30% (95% CI 34 to 42, I2=86%); 23% reported PIR≥50% (95% CI 20 to 26; I2=81%). 50% of patients receiving placebo reported AEs (95% CI 0.43 to 0.58; I2=97%); 2% reported serious AEs (95% CI 2 to 3; I2=58%). In patients receiving active interventions, the placebo response accounts for 75% of the treatment effect on PIR≥30%, and the nocebo response accounts for 75% of the AEs. Interpreted inversely, only 25% of responses and 25% of adverse events can be attributed to the intervention. Publication year positively correlated with PIR≥30% and negatively correlated with AEs. Female sex negatively correlated with AEs. // Conclusions: The placebo and nocebo responses in parallel-designed RCTs in CNP are substantial and should be considered in trial interpretation and in the design of future trials

High-throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State-of-the-art and beyond

In the last decades, the development of high-throughput molecular assays has revolutionised cancer diagnostics, paving the way for the concept of personalised cancer medicine. This progress has been driven by the introduction of such technologies through biomarker-driven oncology trials. In this review, strengths and limitations of various state-of-the-art sequencing technologies, including gene panel sequencing (DNA and RNA), whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing, are explored, focusing on their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers with diagnostic, prognostic and/or predictive impact. This includes the need to assess complex biomarkers, for example microsatellite instability, tumour mutation burden and homologous recombination deficiency, to identify patients suitable for specific therapies, including immunotherapy. Furthermore, the crucial role of biomarker analysis and multidisciplinary molecular tumour boards in selecting patients for trial inclusion is discussed in relation to various trial concepts, including drug repurposing. Recognising that today's exploratory techniques will evolve into tomorrow's routine diagnostics and clinical study inclusion assays, the importance of emerging technologies for multimodal diagnostics, such as proteomics and in vivo drug sensitivity testing, is also discussed. In addition, key regulatory aspects and the importance of patient engagement in all phases of a clinical trial are described. Finally, we propose a set of recommendations for consideration when planning a new precision cancer medicine trial.imag

High-throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State-of-the-art and beyond

In the last decades, the development of high-throughput molecular assays has revolutionised cancer diagnostics, paving the way for the concept of personalised cancer medicine. This progress has been driven by the introduction of such technologies through biomarker-driven oncology trials. In this review, strengths and limitations of various state-of-the-art sequencing technologies, including gene panel sequencing (DNA and RNA), whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing, are explored, focusing on their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers with diagnostic, prognostic and/or predictive impact. This includes the need to assess complex biomarkers, for example microsatellite instability, tumour mutation burden and homologous recombination deficiency, to identify patients suitable for specific therapies, including immunotherapy. Furthermore, the crucial role of biomarker analysis and multidisciplinary molecular tumour boards in selecting patients for trial inclusion is discussed in relation to various trial concepts, including drug repurposing. Recognising that today's exploratory techniques will evolve into tomorrow's routine diagnostics and clinical study inclusion assays, the importance of emerging technologies for multimodal diagnostics, such as proteomics and in vivo drug sensitivity testing, is also discussed. In addition, key regulatory aspects and the importance of patient engagement in all phases of a clinical trial are described. Finally, we propose a set of recommendations for consideration when planning a new precision cancer medicine trial.imag

Potential drug‐drug interactions in acute poisonings managed in the intensive care unit: Occurrence, risk factors and relationship to patient severity on admission

International audienc

Once- versus twice-daily aspirin in patients at high risk of thrombotic events : systematic review and meta-analysis

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020Background: Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is a frequently used antiplatelet agent, although some individuals have reduced antiplatelet responses on ASA, with recurrent ischemic events. It has been proposed that shortening the ASA dosing interval may overcome the time-dependent renewal of the drug target, leading to a greater antiplatelet efect. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efcacy of once- versus twice-daily ASA in conditions with increased platelet turnover. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for RCTs assessing once- versus twice-daily ASA. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised by two independent reviewers, and were pooled using a random-efects model. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and serum thromboxane B2 (TxB2). Other pharmacodynamic measures were retrieved as secondary outcomes. Results were reported as mean diferences with corresponding 95% confdence intervals (CIs). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling 379 participants overall. None of the studies reported clinical outcomes. Pooled results showed that compared with once-daily ASA, twice-daily ASA was associated with a decrease in mean TxB2 of 1.42 ng/mL (95% CI−2.71 to−0.13; I 2 = 66%). We found no diferences in subgroup analyses based on disease subtype, trial blinding, or trial design. A greater antiplatelet activity of the twice-daily regimen was also found when using PFA-100- ADP methods, although not when using the VerifyNow, LTA-AA, and multiplate methods. Conclusions: Twice-daily ASA was associated with a greater antiplatelet efect compared with standard once-daily ASA.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Immune-related serious adverse events with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review and network meta-analysis

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, though uncertainty exists regarding their immune-related safety. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative safety profile (odds ratio) of ICIs and estimate the absolute rate of immune-related serious adverse events (irSAEs) in cancer patients undergoing treatment with ICIs. Methods: We searched for randomized trials till February 2021, including all ICIs for all cancers. Primary outcome was overall irSAEs, and secondary outcomes were pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, hypophysitis, myocarditis, nephritis, and pancreatitis. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses, estimated absolute rates and ranked treatments according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: We included 96 trials (52,811 participants, median age 62 years). Risk of bias was high in most trials. Most cancers were non-small cell lung cancer (28 trials) and melanoma (15 trials). The worst-ranked ICI was ipilimumab (SUCRA 14%; event rate 848/10,000 patients) while the best-ranked ICI was atezolizumab (SUCRA 82%; event rate 119/10,000 patients). Conclusion: Each ICI showed a unique safety profile, with certain events more frequently observed with specific ICIs, which should be considered when managing cancer patients.Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Nocebo response in Parkinson's disease : a systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Objective: To estimate the magnitude of the nocebo response in Parkinson's disease and explore possible associations with study characteristics. Methods: Databases were searched up to February 2017. Placebo-controlled, parallel-group randomized controlled trials investigating pharmacological interventions in people with Parkinson's disease were included. Data were derived from the last measured within-group response in the placebo and intervention arms of randomized controlled trials, after independent extraction. A random-effects model was used to pool study data. The main outcome was the nocebo response, measured as the proportion of placebo-treated participants experiencing any adverse events (AEs). We also measured the proportion of patients with serious AEs (SAEs), and the rates of study dropouts (including due to AEs) and death. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42017070471. Results: We included 236 randomized controlled trials, with a combined population of 17,381 participants allocated to placebo. The nocebo response was 56.0% (95% CI, 51.7%-60.4%; 148 trials; I2 = 98%). SAEs were reported in 4.0% (95% CI, 3.4%-4.6%, 157 trials; I2 = 73%) of placebo-treated patients, dropouts in 14.0% (95% CI, 12.5%-15.5%, 225 trials; I2 = 91%), dropouts due to AEs in 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.4%, 219 trials; I2 = 73%). Deaths occurred in 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.7%, 227 trials; I2 = 0%). Similar proportions were identified in patients in intervention arms. Conclusions: The magnitude of the nocebo response in parallel-designed randomized controlled trials in Parkinson's disease is substantial and should be considered in the interpretation of safety results and in the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio