Abstract

To describe the methodological characteristics and good research practices of COVID-19 interventional studies developed in Brazil in the first months of the pandemic. We reviewed the bulletin of the National Research Ethics Committee - Coronavirus Special Edition (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa - CONEP-COVID) (May 28, 2020) and the databases of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos - ReBEC) to identify interventional studies registered in Brazil that assessed drug type, biological therapy, or vaccines. We described their methodological characteristics and calculated their power for different effect magnitudes. A total of 62 studies were included, 55 retrieved from the CONEP website, and 7 from registry databases. The most tested pharmacological interventions in these studies were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, convalescent plasma, tocilizumab, sarilumab, eculizumab, vaccine, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, n-acetylcysteine, nitazoxanide, ivermectin, and lopinavir/ritonavir. Out of 22 protocols published on registry databases until May 2020, 18 (82%) were randomized clinical trials, and 13 (59%) had an appropriate control group. However, 9 (41%) of them were masked, and only 5 (24%) included patients diagnosed with a specific laboratory test (for example, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction - RT-PCR). Most of these studies had power > 80% only to identify large effect sizes. In the prospective follow-up, 60% of the studies available at CONEP until May 2020 had not been published on any registry platform (ICTRP/ReBEC/ClinicalTrials) by July 21, 2020. The interventions evaluated during the Brazilian research response reflect those of international initiatives, but with a different distribution and a large number of studies assessing hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Limitations in methodological design and sample planning represent challenges that could affect the research outreach.

Highlights

  • A maioria (82%, ou 18 em 22) eram ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), nove (41%) eram mascarados em qualquer nível e pouco mais da metade (13, ou 59%) apresentou comparador placebo/tratamento padrão (Tabela 1)

  • Estes incluíram 22 dos 55 (40%) estudos que tinham sido identificados na Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)

  • Leia-se: de estudos clínicos para COVID-19 em desenvolvimento no Brasil até maio 2020

Read more

Summary

BOLETIM DA COMISSÃO NACIONAL DE ÉTICA EM PESQUISA

O 20o boletim CONEP-COVID, emitido em 28 de maio de 2020, foi acessado para identificar estudos que avaliavam intervenções terapêuticas para COVID-19, por meio de análise de título realizada por dois pesquisadores, de forma independente (TBR e DOM ou NAOS), sendo as divergências resolvidas por intermédio de consenso. Os dados extraídos no dia 30 de maio de 2020 incluíam título, data de aprovação, número de identificação CONEP (Certificado de Apresentação para Apreciação Ética — CAAE) e identificação da intervenção

BASES DE REGISTRO DE PROTOCOLO DE ESTUDO CLÍNICO
Caracterização dos estudos com protocolo publicado
ANÁLISE ESTATÍSTICA E CÁLCULO DE PODER
Análise da adesão aos registros
Aspectos éticos
Não hospitalizado
Findings
Grupo Controle Multicêntricoa
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.