Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University,, Stanford, California, USA.
Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
F1000Res. 2020 Oct 2;9:1193. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.26707.2. eCollection 2020.
: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.
: 临床试验从未像新冠疫情期间那样引起如此多的公众关注。我们旨在描述全球范围内针对新冠病毒的临床研究应对措施及其在大流行最初 100 天内的演变情况。我们对 2020 年 4 月 9 日前通过试验注册处、预印本服务器和文献数据库系统地确定的任何治疗或预防新冠病毒的干预措施进行了计划、正在进行或已完成的试验进行了描述性分析。我们对所有试验进行了调查,以评估截至 2020 年 7 月 6 日的招募情况。大多数 689 项试验(总体目标样本量为 396366 人)规模较小(中位数样本量为 120;四分位距 [IQR]为 60-300),但均为随机试验(75.8%;n=522),且通常在中国(51.1%;n=352)或美国(11%;n=76)进行。525 项试验(76.2%)计划纳入 155571 名住院患者,25 项试验(3.6%)计划纳入 96821 名医护人员。607 项试验(88.1%)评估了治疗方法,经常评估抗病毒药物(n=144)或抗疟药物(n=112);78 项试验(11.3%)侧重于预防,包括 14 项疫苗试验。没有试验研究社会隔离。在 11 项参与者超过 5000 人的试验中测试的干预措施也在 169 项较小的试验中进行了测试(中位数样本量为 273;IQR 为 90-700)。单独使用羟氯喹的试验有 110 项。虽然 414 项试验(60.0%)预计在 2020 年完成,但截至 2020 年 7 月 6 日,只有 35 项试验(4.1%;3071 名参与者)完成。在 112 项有详细招募信息的试验中,55 项试验的目标样本量仅招募了不到 20%;27 项试验招募了 20-50%;30 项试验招募了超过 50%(中位数为 14.8%[IQR 为 2.0-62.0%])。新冠病毒临床试验的规模和速度是前所未有的。然而,大多数试验规模较小,仅调查了一小部分治疗方案。该研究议程的可行性值得怀疑,许多试验可能会无果而终,浪费研究资源。需要更好的协调来应对全球卫生威胁。