Suppr超能文献

2019冠状病毒病治疗紧急使用授权的证据基础:快速综述。

The evidence base for emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments: A rapid review.

作者信息

Knowlson Catherine, Byrne Ailish, Wilkinson Jacqueline, Whitmore Claire, Torgerson David

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit University of York York United Kingdom.

出版信息

Health Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 10;6(1):e1051. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1051. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments with promising data. Eight treatments were issued EUAs by May 31, 2021; one of these was approved (Remdesivir for certain populations) and two were revoked (chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine and bamlanivimab) by September 30, 2021. The aim of this study is to find out what evidence the EUAs were based on and how many studies were published while they remained active (up to September 30, 2021).

METHODS

A review of published clinical studies for the 6 months before each EUA was issued, and the time after (until September 30, 2021, or until revoked). PubMed and the identified systematic reviews were the sources for identifying published literature.

RESULTS

The number of clinical studies published pre-EUA varied from a single case study (for chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine) to numerous studies of multiple types (for convalescent plasma). Four treatments had a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) as evidence (bamlanivimab monotherapy, REGN-COV, bamlanivimab + etesevimab, sotrovimab) and two also had other study types (remdesivir and baricitinib). The number of clinical studies published post-EUA (for those active on September 30, 2021) was widely varied. Eighteen RCTs were published for Convalescent plasma, while Remdesivir had eight. Baricitinib, REGN-COV, and bamlanivimab + etesevimab all had one, but none were published for sotrovimab.

CONCLUSION

The number of trials for treatments with EUAs was limited in all cases before the EUA was issued, and in most cases for those with EUAs ongoing at the end of September 2021. The presence of EUAs may discourage participation in relevant clinical trials, which delays the widespread implementation of evidenced-based therapies. Large, robust RCTs should be completed, such as the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom, to quickly find the answers desperately required during a pandemic.

摘要

背景与目的

在新冠疫情期间,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准了对有前景数据的疫苗/治疗方法的紧急使用授权(EUA)。截至2021年5月31日,有8种治疗方法获得了紧急使用授权;其中一种获得批准(瑞德西韦用于特定人群),两种被撤销(磷酸氯喹/羟氯喹和巴瑞替尼)。本研究的目的是查明紧急使用授权是基于哪些证据,以及在其仍然有效的期间(截至2021年9月30日)发表了多少项研究。

方法

对每种紧急使用授权发布前6个月以及发布后(直至2021年9月30日或直至被撤销)已发表的临床研究进行综述。PubMed和已识别的系统综述是识别已发表文献的来源。

结果

紧急使用授权发布前发表的临床研究数量各不相同,从单个病例研究(磷酸氯喹/羟氯喹)到多种类型的大量研究(康复期血浆)。四种治疗方法以单个随机对照试验(RCT)作为证据(巴瑞替尼单药治疗、REGN-COV、巴瑞替尼+依替西韦单抗、索托维单抗),两种还具有其他研究类型(瑞德西韦和巴瑞替尼)。紧急使用授权发布后(针对2021年9月30日仍有效的那些)发表的临床研究数量差异很大。康复期血浆发表了18项随机对照试验,而瑞德西韦有8项。巴瑞替尼、REGN-COV和巴瑞替尼+依替西韦单抗各有1项,但索托维单抗没有发表相关研究。

结论

在所有情况下,紧急使用授权治疗方法在紧急使用授权发布前的试验数量有限,在2021年9月底仍有紧急使用授权的大多数情况下也是如此。紧急使用授权的存在可能会阻碍参与相关临床试验,从而延迟循证治疗的广泛实施。应该完成大型、有力的随机对照试验,比如英国的RECOVERY试验,以便迅速找到疫情期间迫切需要的答案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6afa/9831114/3cb382036eed/HSR2-6-e1051-g003.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验