Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Jul 15;139:68–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.07.002

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality

Kimia Honarmand a,⁎, Jeremy Penn b, Arnav Agarwal c,d, Reed Siemieniuk c, Romina Brignardello-Petersen c, Jessica J Bartoszko c, Dena Zeraatkar c,e, Thomas Agoritsas c,f, Karen Burns c,g, Shannon M Fernando h, Farid Foroutan i, Long Ge j, Francois Lamontagne k, Mario A Jimenez-Mora l, Srinivas Murthy m, Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez l,n, Per O Vandvik o, Zhikang Ye c, Bram Rochwerg c,p
PMCID: PMC8280397  PMID: 34274489

Abstract

Objective

To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.

Study design

We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.

Results

We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.

Conclusions

There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.

Registration

CRD42020192095

Keywords: Covid-19; Systematic review; Risk of bias; Meta-epidemiology; Methodological quality; Clinical trials, Randomized controlled trials

What is new?

Key findings/ What this adds to what is known

  • •

    There is important variability in risk of bias (RoB) amongst covid-19 trials.

  • •

    Most trials of Covid-19 prophylaxis and therapy trials had a high or probably high RoB in at least one domain.

  • •

    RoB due to the randomization process and single center trial status were associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of finding a statistically significant effect on a study's primary outcome.

Implications of this work/what should change now

  • •

    Trial characteristics, including RoB, contribute to low quality evidence which may be misleading to knowledge-users, cause harm to patients, and absorb a disproportionate amount of attention and resources away from other potentially effective interventions.

  • •

    Researchers and funders are encouraged to consider the potential impact of RoB in their design and prioritization of RCTs.

  • •

    Knowledge users should consider trial design characteristics in their critical appraisal and application of trial findings.

1. Introduction

The rapid rise in the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has been paralleled by an exponential rise in scientific publications related to Covid-19. The number publications with the terms ‘COVID-19’ or ‘SARS-CoV-2’ in their title or abstract was over 17,000 as of May 31, and over 57,000 as of October 5, 2020.

The global search to identify effective interventions against Covid-19 has led to an unprecedented rise in clinical trial activity worldwide. As of October 5, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Coronavirus COVID-19 Clinical Trial Tracker reports that there are currently over 2,300 clinical trials at various stages of completion. The rapidity with which clinical trials in Covid-19 are being planned, completed, and disseminated has triggered concerns about their methodological quality [1,2]. Flaws in study design may lead to biased estimates of intervention effects, leading to treatment decisions that are at best ineffectual, and at worst harmful to patients. The well-known waste in biomedical research may be enhanced by the COVID-19 pandemic [3].

Several recent reports have described the design characteristics of registered trials of Covid-19 therapies [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. These reports, however, are based on registered trials, many of which will not proceed to completion and will therefore not impact clinical knowledge or practice. In addition, the appraisal of trial quality from registries does not include assessment of trial conduct as well as analysis.

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study of published Covid-19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to (1) describe trial characteristics, including risk of bias (RoB), and (2) evaluate the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding statistically significant results for the primary outcome.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

We performed this meta-epidemiological study as part of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs examining Covid-19 prevention and therapy [9]. We prepared this manuscript in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [10].

2.2. Data sources and searches

The complete search strategy is shown in Appendix A. We used the ongoing literature search performed by Centre for Disease Control, which includes 25 databases of published studies and repositories of unpublished studies (medRxiv and bioRxiv), to find potentially relevant articles of therapies related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 from January 1 to October 21, 2020. To identify randomized trials, we filtered the results of the daily searches through a validated and highly sensitive machine learning model [11]. For pragmatic reasons, we excluded trials published in languages other than English.

2.3. Study selection

We included English language RCTs of any publication status (peer-reviewed publication or preprint) that enrolled patients with suspected, probable or confirmed COVID-19, or at risk for contracting COVID-19, and compared the effect of pharmacologic agents or blood products against standard care, a placebo, or an active comparator (i.e., another pharmacologic agent or blood product). We excluded trials of vaccines or traditional herbal medicines that included more than one molecule or did not have a specific molecular weight dosing.

Working in pairs, reviewers screened, independently and in duplicate, titles and abstracts and then full-texts for articles found potentially eligible at the title and abstract screening stage. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and where needed, by third party adjudication.

2.4. Data extraction and quality assessment

Using a pre-developed data extraction form, we extracted study characteristics including: registration status (registered vs. non-registered), publication status (preprint vs. peer reviewed publication), trial design (single-center or multicenter), funding source (industry vs. non-industry), study interventions (number of study arms, intervention details, type of comparator [active vs. not]). We also extracted details about the trial's reported primary outcome(s), including whether the outcome was binary vs. continuous vs. ordinal, patient-important or surrogate, event rates and summary statistics for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, and whether there was a statistically significant difference detected in the primary outcome. For the purposes of this analysis, where a trial did not indicate a primary outcome and reported more than one primary outcome, we included the outcome which had the largest relative treatment effect between study arms.

Three reviewers evaluated RoB of included studies using the modified version of the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool independently (Appendix B) based on information from the trial publication, pre-print, and protocol registration, as available. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The modified Cochrane RoB tool rates methodological quality of each included study as low, probably low, probably high, or high RoB across each of five domains, reflecting bias: (i) from the randomization process, (ii) due to deviations from the intended intervention (which included blinding procedures), (iii) due to missing data, (iv) due to measurement of the outcome, and (v) in selection of the reported results. We categorized overall study RoB as the highest rating in any of the five domains (i.e., if one domain is rated as ‘high’ RoB, then the overall study RoB was rated as ‘high’).

2.5. Data synthesis and analysis

We used descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations, medians and interquartile ranges, and proportions and confidence intervals, as appropriate) to summarize trial characteristics and RoB for the included trials.

We then conducted logistic regression analyses to assess the association between a trial finding a statistically significant effect (defined as a P-value equal to or less than 0.05) and pre-specified trial characteristics, including:

  • •

    RoB due to randomization: dichotomized into low/ probably low RoB and high/ probably high RoB

  • •

    Centre status: Multicenter vs. single center trial

  • •

    Funding source: those with any industry funding vs. those without industry funding

  • •

    Trial sample size (using the total number randomized as a continuous variable)

We selected these trial characteristics a priori based on the hypothesis that these specific trial characteristics were most important in influencing trial findings. We included RoB due to the randomization process, as opposed to other RoB domains, as we anticipated the randomization process, which incorporates the procedures used to randomize participants, allocation concealment, as well as baseline imbalanced in unblinded trials, to have the highest association with trial outcomes and due to the anticipated limited variability between trials in other RoB domains, which would not allow for meaningful interpretation or conclusions.

Among the four selected predictor variables, we used purposeful selection of predictor variables according to the approach described by Bursac and colleagues [12]. The process began with univariate analysis of each of the four pre-specified predictors. Then, variables that yield a P-value of less than 0.25 are selected as candidates for the multivariable analysis and entered into the model. Through an iterative process of variable selection, variables are retained in the model only if they (1) have an association with the outcome as defined by a P-value of <0.1 or (2) have a confounding effect, defined a change in the group coefficient by more than 15% when the variable is removed as compared to the full model. This approach allows for iterative selection of predictor variables and retains in the model those predictors that are not themselves significantly associated with the outcome but contribute to the effect of other predictors. We planned to perform subgroup analyses to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics on trial outcomes among trials that were preprints compared to those published in peer-reviewed journals but the relatively small number of trials prohibited this analysis. We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26.0 (IBM Corporation) for all descriptive and regression analyses and Stata/IC 16.1 (StataCorp LLC) to produce the forest plot of effect sizes.

2.6. Role of the funding source

The funding source had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, and the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript.

2.7. Protocol registration

We registered the protocol for this study in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020192095).

3. Results

3.1. Study selection

The search identified 13,536 records which were reviewed in duplicate as part of a living network meta-analysis, and yielded 103 trials of therapeutic or prophylactic interventions for Covid-19 [9]. We excluded five RCTs published in languages other than English, two trials that reported on a cohort overlapping with another included trial, two that reported preliminary results but not findings related to their primary outcomes, and three unpublished studies that were included in a meta-analysis with insufficient information to include in our review. We included a total of 91 clinical trials (54 peer-reviewed publications, 37 preprints) in this analysis.

3.2. Trial characteristics

3.2.1. Overall trial characteristics

Table 1 and Appendix C present the aggregate characteristics of included studies. The 91 included trials enrolled a total of 46,802 patients between January 18 (first recruitment) and October 4 (last recruitment). Included trials evaluated one or more drugs (n = 76,[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]) or blood products (n = 9,[89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]) to treat patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 or drugs used as prophylaxis for patients at risk for Covid-19 (n = 6, [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]). All but one of the trials were parallel group design (one trial was a cluster randomized design). Thirty of 91 trials were conducted by a country in the Western Pacific Region, primarily China (n = 27). Fig. 1 illustrates the proportion of trials that were led by countries in various regions, as defined by the WHO. All but three trials were pre-registered. Fifty-one trials were multicenter whereas 40 were single center. Trial sample size ranged from 10 to 14,247 (median: 84, interquartile range [IQR]: 151); 23 trials enrolled less than 50 patients, 51 enrolled 50 to 400 patients, and 17 enrolled over 400 patients. Only one trial was terminated early by the data and safety monitoring board due to slowed recruitment as a result of declining cases of Covid-19 [75].

Table 1.

Study characteristics & risk of bias

Study characteristics All studiesN = 91 Statistically significant effect reported?
YesN = 38 NoN = 53
Design characteristics
Centre status Single center
Multicenter		 40 (44%)
51 (56%)		 24 (63.2%)
14 (36.8%)		 16 (30.2%)
37 (69.8%)
Funding source No industry funding/ support
Industry funding/ support/ not reported		 60 (65.9%)
31 (34.1%)		 25 (65.8%)
13 (34.2%)		 35 (66%)
18 (34%)
Trial sample size Median (IQR)
 84 (48, 199) 77 (33, 100) 102 (54.5, 402.5)
Level of blinding Unblinded
Only patients blinded
Patients and treating clinicians blinded		 68 (74.7%)
3 (3.3%)
20 (22.0%)		 30 (79.0%)
2 (5.3%)
6 (15.8%)		 38 (71.7%)
1 (1.9%)
14 (26.4%)
Type of intervention Therapeutic intervention
Pharmacological agent
Blood product
Prophylaxis intervention
76 (83.5%)
9 (9.9%)
6 (6.6%)
34 (89.5%)
4 (10.5%)
0 (0%)
42 (79.2%)
5 (9.4%)
6 (11.3%)
Risk of bias (RoB)
Overall RoB Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 16 (17.6%)
75 (82.4%)		 6 (15.8%)
32 (84.2%)		 10 (18.9%)
43 (81.1%)
Bias from randomization process Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 43 (47.3%)
48 (52.7%)		 10 (26.3%)
28 (73.7%)		 33 (62.3%)
20 (37.7%)
Bias due to deviation from intended intervention Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 16 (17.6%)
75 (82.4%)		 5 (13.2%)
33 (86.8%)		 11 (20.8%)
42 (79.2%)
Bias due to incomplete outcome data Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 85 (93.4%)
6 (6.6%)		 35 (92.1%)
3 (7.9%)		 50 (94.3%)
3 (5.7%)
Bias due to primary outcome measurement Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 79 (86.8%)
12 (13.2%)		 31 (81.6%)
7 (18.4%)		 48 (90.6%)
5 (9.4%)
Bias due to selective outcome reporting Low/ Probably Low
High/ Probably High		 88 (96.7%)
3 (3.3%)		 37 (97.4%)
1 (2.6%)		 51 (96.2%)
2 (3.8%)
Open in a new tab
Fig. 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The geographical distribution of trials according to WHO region.

Among 88 studies that reported their funding source, 28 received at least some industry support including complete industry funding in 10 trials, partial industry funding for 7 trials, and provision of intervention/ medications by industry in 11. The 60 trials that reported no industry support were funded by governmental sources (n = 31), academic institutions (n = 9), multiple sources (government, academic institutional, and/ or not-for-profit organization; n = 13) or received no funding (n = 7).

3.2.2. Trial risk of bias

There was variability across various RoB domains. Seventy-five (82.4%) having overall high or probably high RoB (Table 1). Across individual RoB domains, there was high/ probably high RoB from the randomization process in 48 trials (52.7%), due to deviations from the intended protocol (which incorporates blinding procedures) in 75 (82.4%), due to incomplete primary outcome data in 6 (6.6%), due to incomplete primary outcome measurement in 12 (13.2%), and due to selective outcome reporting in 3 (3.3%; Table 1).

3.2.3. Trial primary outcomes

Appendix C presents the primary outcomes of included studies and their characteristics. The primary outcomes were binary in 39 trials, continuous in 37, ordinal in 5, and the remaining 10 trials reported more than one primary outcome. Among the 85 therapy trials, most trials (26% or 28.6%) reported a measure of clinical recovery or symptom resolution as the primary outcome. Thirty-eight studies reported a statistically significant effect (41.8%) and 53 reported no statistically significant difference (58.2%; Appendix C).

3.3. Association between trial characteristics and findings

We evaluated the association between each of the pre-specified trial characteristics on trial findings (whether or not a statistically significant effect was found). Bias due to the randomization process was high or probably high in 28 of 38 (73.7%) of trials that found a statistically significant effect on their primary outcome, compared with 20 of 53 (37.7%) of trials that found no statistically significant effect. Fig. 2 shows the RoB across the five domains on the modified Cochrane RoB tool across the two groups of trials (additional details provided in Appendix D).

Fig. 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias according to trial finding.

Single center studies accounted for 24 of 38 (63.2%) trials that reported a statistically significant effect compared with 16 of 53 (30.2%) trials that reported no statistically significant effect (OR 3.93, 95% CI, 1.38–11.19). Thirteen of 38 trials (34.2%) that found a statistically significant effect were industry funded compared with 18 of 53 (34.0%) trials that found no statistically significant effect (OR 1.82, 95% CI, 0.61–5.43). Median sample size was 77 (IQR: 67) among trials that found a statistically significant effect and 102 (IQR: 348) in trials that found no statistically significant effect (OR 1.00 per patient randomized, 95% CI: 1.00–1.00, P = 0.74). Bias due to the randomization process was associated with higher odds of finding a statistically significant effect (OR 3.89, 95% CI, 1.46–10.36).

In univariate analysis, only bias due to the randomization process was associated with trial outcome (whether or not a statistically significant intervention effect was found); there was no association between trial outcome and center status, funding source, and sample size (Table 2 ). In multivariable analysis, we found that higher bias due to the randomization process (OR 3.77, 95% CI, 1.47–9.72) and single center trial status (OR 3.15, 95% CI, 1.25–7.97) were predictors of a trial finding a statistically significant effect.

Table 2.

Association between trial characteristics and statistically significant results in primary outcome of Covid-19 clinical trials

Predictor variables Univariable analysis
 Multivariable model
OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P
RoB due to randomization processa 3.89 (1.46–10.36) 0.01 3.77 (1.47 to 9.72) 0.01
Single center vs. multicenter 3.93 (1.38–11.19) 0.01 3.15 (1.25 to 7.97) 0.02
Industry vs. non-industry support 1.82 (0.61–5.43) 0.28 - -
Total sample size 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.76 - -
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RoB, risk of bias

a

Dichotomized into low/ probably low vs. high/ probably high

4. Conclusions

In this meta-epidemiological study of clinical trials of Covid-19 prophylaxis and treatments, we found that 82.4% of trials had high or probably high RoB, 82.4% due to deviations from the intended intervention (including blinding) and 52.7% due to the randomization process (including allocation concealment and adequacy of the randomization procedure). Other trial characteristics were highly variable across studies: 44% were single center trials, slightly less than one-third received at least some support from an industry source and all but 3 trials were registered in advance. Sample sizes were highly variable across studies, ranging from 10 to over 14,247, with one-quarter enrolling less than 50 patients.

The Covid-19 pandemic has seen the global research community embark on a collective search to identify effective prophylactic and therapeutic interventions against the disease. This global response has substantially exceeded that of previous pandemics: in the first six months, thousands of clinical trials had already been registered and hundreds were underway, compared with 71 registered trials after the onset of the H1N1/09 virus pandemic in 2009 and no registered trials after the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome epidemics during the same time frame [104]. This pandemic has also seen an unprecedented level of public interest. Early research findings are now routinely disseminated by researchers in preprint form (bypassing the long-held tradition of peer-review process), and on social media by mainstream media and the healthcare community. In most cases, this is done with inadequate attention to issues related to study design and methodologic quality.

Trial characteristics, including RoB, lead to low quality evidence, which may be uninformative at best and may cause harm to patients. In addition, poor quality trials absorb a disproportionate amount of attention from the general public and divert attention and research resources (i.e., efforts, financial support) away from other interventions which may be beneficial but remain under-investigated. These concerns are undoubtedly compounded when we consider the research resources allocated observational studies and RCTs that remain unpublished. The ultimate effect may be diminished public confidence in the scientific process, especially as data from low quality trials may not be reproducible and likely to be contradicted in subsequent, well-designed trials. In this study, we found that bias due to randomization process and single center trial status were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect on the primary outcome, independent of the effect of sample size or industry funding source.

Bias due to the randomization process, including inadequate randomization procedures, failure to ensure allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, increases the risk of selection bias. We found that RoB due to the randomization process was associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of a trial finding a statistically significant effect. Previous studies have shown a similar association between selection bias and increased estimate of treatment benefit [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. Similarly, a systematic review found that selection bias (due to inadequate randomization procedures and allocation concealment) was the most methodological bias across registered clinical trials of Covid-19 therapies [8].

We also found that single center trial status was associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of a trial reporting a statistically significant interventional effect relative to multicenter trials, independent of the effect of sample size. The lack of an association between industry funding and the likelihood of finding a statistically significant effect is consistent with the findings of some previous meta-epidemiological studies [110,111], but inconsistent with other studies that found that industry funded trials are more likely to report a statistically significant effect [112,113]. Lastly, we found no association between sample size and the likelihood of a statistically significant effect. While a previous meta-epidemiological study showed that small studies tend to overestimate effect sizes [114], that study also found that smaller trials had higher RoB across all domains, which may be the more likely explanatory variable.

This study has several strengths. We performed a comprehensive search as part of a living systematic review and NMA peer-reviewed and published in the BMJ, searched a large number of databases, included all Covid-19 RCTs examining drugs or blood products as therapeutics as well as drugs for prophylaxis. This living systematic review is currently informing the WHO living guidelines performed in collaboration with the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation [115]. The linkage to these trustworthy guidelines adds further rigor to the assessments of RoB through involvement of methodologists and unconflicted clinical experts making use of GRADE evidence summaries from the systematic review. In addition, we conducted RoB evaluation in duplicate, carefully assessed other trial characteristics that could influence likelihood of findings a statistically significant result. This study has several limitations. First, we did not include non-English trials which may influence the association between trial characteristics and trial outcomes. In addition, it is likely that trials with non-significant findings are less likely to be published than those with that demonstrate a significant treatment effect and our analyses do not account for such potential publication bias. Furthermore, although the current study included only pharmacological agents with a known molecular weight, future analyses can include trials of other drugs, including other traditional medicines, being evaluated for their role in preventing or treating Covid-19. In addition, the relatively small sample of RCTs precluded our ability to conduct pre-planned subgroup analyses to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics on trial outcomes among trials that were preprints compared to those published in peer-reviewed journals. As such, updates on this report as more trials are published will allow for evaluation of a broader range of trial design characteristics and subgroup analyses to further understand the association between trial characteristics and trial outcomes. Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of outcomes being evaluated in clinical trials of Covid-19, including patient-important outcomes, is currently underway [116].

4.1. Moving towards producing trustworthy research during a pandemic

These findings offer several future considerations for researchers, funding agencies, and knowledge users. In their design and planning of Covid-19 (or other pandemic-based) trials, researchers are encouraged to consider the impact of trial characteristics and, as with non-pandemic research, strive to generate reliable, high quality evidence. The pandemic should not be an excuse for producing low quality research or cutting corners in trial design. The findings of this review highlight the need for researchers to minimize the risk of producing misleading trial results by focusing on rigor in trial design (often competing with expediency), and with a particular focus on the randomization process. In addition to centralized randomization procedures, based on our findings, researchers are encouraged to prioritize allocation concealment and blinding of healthcare providers, as baseline imbalances between treatments groups contribute to a reduction in the trustworthiness of trial findings. In addition, researcher groups are encouraged to capitalize on the vast collaborations that have evolved through the Covid-19 pandemic in planning future trials as here is enhanced generalizability in multicenter RCTs as compared to single center studies. Specifically, during COVID, we have seen numerous platform trials which have efficiently evaluated multiple interventions in large patient populations across multiple centers and countries [16,44] that serve as fantastic examples of when this works well. In addition, funders should be cognizant of the ongoing research waste, accentuated during a pandemic, limiting their grant support to well-designed trials that are likely to yield reliable, high quality evidence, even if producing this high-quality data takes a little more time. Finally, knowledge users, particularly clinicians, should be mindful of methodological characteristics of RCTs when critically appraising and applying their findings at the bedside.

Author contributions

Kimia Honarmand: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing- Review & Editing. Jeremy Penn: Investigation, Data curation, Writing-Review & Editing. Arnav Agarwal: Investigation, Data curation, Writing- Review & Editing. Reed Siemieniuk: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing-Review & Editing, Funding acquisition. Romina Brignardello-Petersen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing-Review & Editing, Funding acquisition. Jessica J. Bartoszko: Methodology, Investigation, Supervision, Data curation, Software, Writing-Review & Editing. Dena Zeraatkar: Methodology, Investigation, Supervision, Data curation, Writing-Review & Editing. Thomas Agoritsas: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Karen Burns: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Shannon M. Fernando: Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Review & Editing. Farid Foroutan: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-Review & Editing. Long Ge: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing-Review & Editing. Francois Lamontagne: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Mario A. Jimenez-Mora: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Srinivas Murthy: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez: Methodology, Writing-Review & Editing. Per O. Vandvik: Methodology, Writing- Review & Editing. Zhikang Ye: Methodology, Data curation, Writing-Review & Editing. Bram Rochwerg: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing-Review & Editing. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Ethical approval

Not applicable. All the work was developed using published/pre-print data.

Funding

This is a substudy of the living network meta-analysis, supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC: 0579001321). Dr. Rochwerg is supported by a Hamilton Health Sciences Early Career Research Award. The funders had no role in the conduct of this study.

Transparency declaration

KH affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. KH affirms that all authors had access to all the study data, take responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis and had authority over manuscript preparation and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. All authors approve the manuscript and agree to adhere to all terms outlined in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology information for authors including terms for copyright.

Dissemination declaration

It is not applicable to disseminate the results to study participants and or patient organizations.

Data sharing

No additional data available.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement statement

It was not appropriate or possible to involve patients or the public in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: The study received funding support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. BR is also supported by a Hamilton Health Sciences Early Career Research Award; LG reports grants from Ministry of Science and Technology of China, outside the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.07.002.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

mmc1.pdf (173.8KB, pdf)
mmc2.pdf (51.2KB, pdf)
mmc3.pdf (16.6KB, pdf)
mmc4.pdf (94KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Alexander PE, Debono VB, Mammen MJ, Iorio A, Deng D, Brocard E, et al. COVID-19 coronavirus research has overall low methodological quality thus far: case in point for chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rochwerg B, Parke R, Murthy S, et al. Misinformation during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: how knowledge emerges from noise. Crit Care Explor. 2020;2(4):e0098. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Glasziou PP, Sanders S, Hoffmann T. Waste in covid-19 research. BMJ. 2020;369:m1847. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dal-Re R, Mahillo-Fernandez I. Waste in COVID-19 clinical trials conducted in western Europe. Eur J Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2020.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hsiehchen D, Espinoza M, Hsieh A. Deficiencies in the designs and interventions of COVID-19 Clinical Trials. Med (N Y) 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2020.06.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Janiaud P, Axfors C, Van't Hooft J, et al. The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days. F1000Res. 2020;9:1193. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.26707.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mehta HB, Ehrhardt S, Moore TJ, et al. Characteristics of registered clinical trials assessing treatments for COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhu RF, Gao YL, Robert SH, et al. Systematic review of the registered clinical trials for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02442-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Siemieniuk RA, Bartoszko JJ, Ge L, et al. Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:m2980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7) doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, et al. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner's guide. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(4):602–614. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, et al. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abbaspour Kasgari H, Moradi S, Shabani AM, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir in combination with ribavirin for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate disease compared with standard care: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(11):3373–3378. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abd-Elsalam S, Esmail ES, Khalaf M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103(4):1635–1639. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 15.Altay O, Yang H, Aydin M, et al. Combined metabolic cofactor supplementation accelerates recovery in mild-to-moderate COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.10.02.20202614. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Angus DC, Derde L, Al-Beidh F, et al. Effect of hydrocortisone on mortality and organ support in patients with severe COVID-19: the remap-cap COVID-19 corticosteroid domain randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1317–1329. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ansarin K, Tolouian R, Ardalan M, et al. Effect of bromhexine on clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial. Bioimpacts. 2020;10(4):209–215. doi: 10.34172/bi.2020.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 - final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1813–1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Borba MGS, Val FFA, Sampaio VS, et al. Effect of high vs low doses of chloroquine diphosphate as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787–1799. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cao Y, Wei J, Zou L, et al. Ruxolitinib in treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cavalcanti AB, Zampieri FG, Rosa RG, et al. Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin in mild-to-moderate Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chen C, Zhang Y, Huang J, et al. Favipiravir versus arbidol for COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037432. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chen C-P, Lin Y-C, Chen T-C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.08.20148841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen L, Zhang Z-y, Fu J-g, et al. Efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in moderate type of COVID-19: a prospective open-label randomized controlled study. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.06.19.20136093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chen Z, Hu J, Zhang Z, et al. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cheng LL, Guan WJ, Duan CY, et al. Effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lymphopenia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Corral-Gudino L, Bahamonde A, Arnaiz delas Revillas F, et al. GLUCOCOVID: a controlled trial of methylprednisolone in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.06.17.20133579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cruz LR, Baladron I, Rittoles A, et al. Treatment with an Anti-CK2 synthetic peptide improves clinical response in Covid-19 patients with pneumonia. a randomized and controlled clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.09.03.20187112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dabbous H, El-Sayed M, Assal GE, et al. A randomized controlled study of favipiravir vs hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 management: what have we learned so far? Research Square. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-83677/v1. pre-print. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Davoodi L, Abedi SM, Salehifar E, et al. Febuxostat therapy in outpatients with suspected COVID-19: A clinical trial. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(11):e13600. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Davoudi-Monfared E, Rahmani H, Khalili H, et al. A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of interferon β-1a in treatment of severe COVID-19. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;64(9) doi: 10.1128/aac.01061-20. e01061–e01020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.de Alencar JCG, CdL Moreira, Müller AD, et al. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with n-acetylcysteine for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Deftereos SG, Giannopoulos G, Vrachatis DA, et al. Effect of colchicine vs standard care on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019: the GRECCO-19 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Delgado-Enciso I, Paz-Garcia J, Barajas-Saucedo CE, et al. Patient-reported health outcomes after treatment of covid-19 with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone: a randomized, open-label, controlled trial. Res Square. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-68403/v1. pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dequin PF, Heming N, Meziani F, et al. Effect of hydrocortisone on 21-day mortality or respiratory support among critically ill patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1298–1306. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.16761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Doi Y, Hibino M, Hase R, et al. A prospective, randomized, open-label trial of early versus late favipiravir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 doi: 10.1128/AAC.01897-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Duarte M, Pelorosso FG, Nicolosi L, et al. Telmisartan for treatment of Covid-19 patients: an open randomized clinical trial. Preliminary report. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.04.20167205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Edalatifard M, Akhtari M, Salehi M, et al. Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse as a treatment for hospitalised severe COVID-19 patients: results from a randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Respir J. 2020 doi: 10.1183/13993003.02808-2020. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Entrenas-Castillo M, Entrenas Costa LM, Vaquero Barrios JM, et al. Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2020;203 doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2020.105751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fu W, Liu Y, Xia L, et al. A clinical pilot study on the safety and efficacy of aerosol inhalation treatment of IFN-kappa plus TFF2 in patients with moderate COVID-19. EClinical Medicine. 2020;25 doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Furtado RHM, Berwanger O, Fonseca HA, et al. Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10256):959–967. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31862-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Goldman JD, Lye DCB, Hui DS, et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 days in patients with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(19):1827–1837. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Recovery Collaborative Group Lopinavir-ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1345–1352. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32013-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Guvenmez O, Keskin H, Ay B, et al. The comparison of the effectiveness of lincocin® and azitro® in the treatment of covid-19-associated pneumonia: A prospective study. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2020;27(SP1):e5–e10. doi: 10.15586/jptcp.v27iSP1.684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson J, et al. Effect of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: preliminary report. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Horby P, Mafham M, Linsell L, et al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with covid-19: preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hu K, Wang M, Zhao Y, et al. A small-scale medication of leflunomide as a treatment of COVID-19 in an open-label blank-controlled clinical trial. Virol Sin. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s12250-020-00258-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Huang M, Tang T, Pang P, et al. Treating COVID-19 with chloroquine. J Mol Cell Biol. 2020;12(4):322–325. doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjaa014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Huang Y-Q, Tang S-Q, Xu X-L, et al. No statistically apparent difference in antiviral effectiveness observed among ribavirin plus interferon-alpha, lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon-alpha, and ribavirin plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon-alpha in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: results of a randomized, open-labeled prospective study. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11(1071) doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hung IF, Lung KC, Tso EY, et al. Triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10238):1695–1704. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31042-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Idelsis E-M, Jesus P-E, Yaquelin D-R, et al. Effect and safety of combination of interferon alpha-2b and gamma or interferon alpha-2b for negativization of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. Preliminary results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.29.20164251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ivashchenko AA, Dmitriev KA, Vostokova NV, et al. AVIFAVIR for treatment of patients with moderate covid-19: interim results of a phase ii/iii multicenter randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jeronimo CMP, Farias MEL, Val FFA, et al. Methylprednisolone as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (Metcovid): a randomised, double-blind, phase IIb, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kimura KS, Freeman MH, Wessinger BC, et al. Interim analysis of an open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating nasal irrigations in non-hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020 doi: 10.1002/alr.22703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lemos ACB, do Espirito Santo DA, Salvetti MC, et al. Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for severe COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial (HESACOVID) Thromb Res. 2020;196:359–366. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.09.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li C, Xiong N, Xu Z, et al. Recombinant super-compound interferon (rSIFN-co) versus interferon alfa in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COVID-19: a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. SSRN Electronic J. 2020 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3622363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Li T, Sun L, Zhang W, et al. Bromhexine hydrochloride tablets for the treatment of moderate COVID-19: an open-label randomized controlled pilot study. Clin Transl Sci. 2020 doi: 10.1111/cts.12881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Li Y, Xie Z, Lin W, et al. An exploratory randomized, controlled study on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol treating adult patients hospitalized with mild/moderate COVID-19 (ELACOI) medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.03.19.20038984. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lopes MIF, Bonjorno LP, Giannini MC, et al. Beneficial effects of colchicine for moderate to severe COVID-19: an interim analysis of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.06.20169573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lou Y, Liu L, Qiu Y. Clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations of baloxavir marboxil and favipiravir in COVID-19 patients: an exploratory randomized, controlled trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.04.29.20085761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lyngbakken MN, Berdal JE, Eskesen A, et al. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial reports lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine on coronavirus disease 2019 viral kinetics. Res Sq. 2020 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19056-6. pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mansour E, Palma AC, Ulaf RG, et al. Pharmacological inhibition of the kinin-kallikrein system in severe COVID-19 A proof-of-concept study. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.11.20167353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Miller J, Bruen C, Schnaus M, et al. Auxora versus standard of care for the treatment of severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia: results from a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):502. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03220-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Nojomi M, Yasin Z, Keyvani H, et al. Effect of arbidol on COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial. Res Sq. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-78316/v1. pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Pan H, Peto R, Karim QA, et al. Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19 –interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rahmani H, Davoudi-Monfared E, Nourian A, et al. Interferon beta-1b in treatment of severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;88 doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ren Z, Luo H, Yu Z, et al. A randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial of azvudine tablets in the treatment of mild and common COVID-19, a pilot study. Adv Sci. 2020;7 doi: 10.1002/advs.202001435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rosas I, Bräu N, Waters M, et al. Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.27.20183442. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sadeghi A, Ali Asgari A, Norouzi A, et al. Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir compared with standard of care in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(11):3379–3385. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkaa334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Salehzadeh F, Pourfarzi F, Ataei S. The impact of colchicine on the COVID-19 patients; a clinical trial study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-69374/v1. pre print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Sekhavati E, Jafari F, SeyedAlinaghi S, et al. Safety and effectiveness of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: An open-label randomised trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56(4) doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Skipper CP, Pastick KA, Engen NW, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in nonhospitalized adults with early COVID-19: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(8):623–631. doi: 10.7326/M20-4207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, et al. Effect of remdesivir vs standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1048–1057. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.16349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, et al. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19: the CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1307–1316. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ulrich RJ, Troxel AB, Carmody E, et al. Treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): a multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(10):ofaa446. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Vlaar APJ, de Bruin S, Busch M, et al. Anti-C5a antibody IFX-1 (vilobelimab) treatment versus best supportive care for patients with severe COVID-19 (PANAMO): an exploratory, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30341-6. pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Wang D, Fu B, Peng Z, Dongliang, et al. Tocilizumab ameliorates the hypoxia in COVID-19 moderate patients with bilateral pulmonary lesions: a randomized, controlled, open-label, Multicenter Trial. Front Med. 2020 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3667681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wang M, Zhao Y, Hu W, et al. Treatment of COVID-19 patients with prolonged post-symptomatic viral shedding with leflunomide: a single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10236):1569–1578. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31022-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wu X, Yu K, Wang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of triazavirin therapy for coronavirus disease 2019: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Engineering. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2020.08.011. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Yethindra V, Tagaev T, Uulu MS, et al. Efficacy of umifenovir in the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19 patients. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2020;11(SPL):506–509. doi: 10.26452/ijrps.v11iSPL1.2839. 1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Yuan X, Yi W, Liu B, et al. Pulmonary radiological change of COVID-19 patients with 99mTc-MDP treatment. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20054767. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Zhang J, Rao X, Li Y, et al. High-dose vitamin C infusion for the treatment of critically ill COVID-19. Res Sq. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-52778/v1. pre-print. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Zhao H, Zhu Q, Zhang C, et al. Tocilizumab combined with favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19: A multicenter trial in a small sample size. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110825. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Zheng F, Zhou Y, Zhou Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 clearance in COVID-19 patients with novaferon treatment: a randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;99:84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Zhong M, Sun A, Xiao T, et al. A randomized, single-blind, group sequential, active-controlled study to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of α-lipoic acid for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.04.15.20066266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Agarwal A, Mukherjee A, Kumar G, et al. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate COVID-19 in India: An open-label parallel-arm phase II multicentre randomized controlled trial (PLACID Trial) medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.09.03.20187252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Avendano-Sola C, Ramos-Martinez A, Munez-Rubio E, et al. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.08.26.20182444. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Balcells ME, Rojas L, Le Corre N, et al. Early anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: a randomized phase II clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.09.17.20196212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Bandopadhyay P, D'Rozario R, Lahiri A, et al. Nature and dimensions of the cytokine storm and its attenuation by convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.09.21.20199109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Gharbharan A, Jordans CCE, GeurtsvanKessel C, et al. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19. a randomized clinical trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.01.20139857. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gharebaghi N, Nejadrahim R, Mousavi SJ, et al. The use of intravenous immunoglobulin gamma for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):786. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05507-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, et al. Effect of convalescent plasma therapy on time to clinical improvement in patients with severe and life-threatening COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(5):460–470. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.10044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Sakoulas G, Geriak M, Kullar R, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) significantly reduces respiratory morbidity in COVID-19 pneumonia: a prospective randomized trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157891. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Shu L, Niu C, Li R, et al. Treatment of severe COVID-19 with human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11(1):361. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01875-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Abella BS, Jolkovsky EL, Biney BT, et al. Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine vs placebo for pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis among health care workers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.6319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Amat-Santos IJ, Santos-Martinez S, Lopez-Otero D, et al. Ramipril in high-risk patients with COVID-19. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(3):268–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, et al. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):517–525. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2016638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Grau-Pujol B, Camprubí D, Marti-Soler H, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine for COVID- 19: initial results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-72132/v1. pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Mitja O, Ubals M, Corbacho M, et al. A cluster-randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine as prevention of Covid-19 transmission and disease. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.20.20157651. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Rajasingham R, Bangdiwala AS, Nicol MR, et al. Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a randomized trial. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.09.18.20197327. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Ramanan M, Stolz A, Rooplalsingh R, et al. An evaluation of the quality and impact of the global research response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Med J Aust. 2020;213(8):380. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50790. e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Bialy L, Vandermeer B, Lacaze-Masmonteil T, et al. A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials. Evid Based Child Health. 2014;9(4):1052–1059. doi: 10.1002/ebch.1985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–613. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Savovic J, Jones H, Altman D, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(35):1–82. doi: 10.3310/hta16350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–412. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–605. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Janiaud P, Cristea IA, Ioannidis JPA. Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(10):1613–1627. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5325-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Khan NA, Lombeida JI, Singh M, et al. Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(7):2059–2067. doi: 10.1002/art.34393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Montgomery JH, Byerly M, Carmody T, et al. An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(6):598–612. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Falk Delgado A, Falk Delgado A. The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013-2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis. Trials. 2017;18(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Zhang Z, Xu X, Ni H. Small studies may overestimate the effect sizes in critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. Crit Care. 2013;17(1):R2. doi: 10.1186/cc11919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Lamontagne F, Agoritsas T, Macdonald H, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m3379. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Jimenez-Mora MA, Varela AR, Meneses-Echavez JF, et al. Patient-important outcomes reported in clinical studies of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a meta-epidemiological study. Res Sq. 2020 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-107409/v1. Pre-print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

mmc1.pdf (173.8KB, pdf)
mmc2.pdf (51.2KB, pdf)
mmc3.pdf (16.6KB, pdf)
mmc4.pdf (94KB, pdf)

Articles from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES