Abstract
It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability.
This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5/5/2020.
Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and the instruments used to measure them. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality and adverse events, while hospital admission and viral detection/load are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. In general, simple instruments that can control for important sources of bias are favoured. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed.
The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for consensus in the design of RCTs.
Take home message @ERSpublications: This systematic review describes the heterogeneity in outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on COVID-19 management and the instruments used to measure them. Our findings reveal a need for consensus in the design of future RCTs.
Competing Interest Statement
This study was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). None of the authors report and CoIs related to this work. AGM reports grants from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. NDB reports personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, TEVA, Chiesi, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. DS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Peptinnovate, Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Therevance and Verona, outside the submitted work. TF reports personal fees from Theravance Biopharma, Gilead and Menarini, outside the submitted work. JV reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Inghelheim and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors do not have any CoIs.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable. This is a methodologocical systematic review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form detailing any conflicts of interest outside the submitted work that they may have. None of the authors have conflicts directly related to this work.
Funding: This study was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).
Data Availability
Not applicable - this is a methodological systematic review
