Question: are there any clinical trials available for the coronavirus

Title: Treatment Considerations for COVID-19: A Critical Review of the Evidence (or Lack Thereof) Content: Abstract The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is causing a worldwide pandemic that may lead to a highly morbid and potentially fatal coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). There is currently no drug that has been proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19. Several candidate drugs are being considered and evaluated for treatment. This includes clinically-available drugs, such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir, which are being repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. Novel experimental therapies, such as remdesivir and favipiravir, are also actively being investigated for antiviral efficacy. Clinically-available and investigational immunomodulators, such as the IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab and the anti-GMCSF lenzilumab, are being tested for their anticipated effect in counteracting the pro-inflammatory cytokine environment that characterizes severe and critical COVID-19. This review article examines the evidence behind the potential use of these leading drug candidates for the treatment of COVID-19. The authors conclude, based on this review, that there is still no high-quality evidence to support any of these proposed drug therapies. The authors, therefore, encourage the enrollment of eligible patients to multiple ongoing clinical trials that assess the efficacy and safety of these candidate therapies. Until the results of controlled trials are available, none of the suggested therapeutics is clinically proven as an effective therapy for COVID-19.

Title: IL-6 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Serious COVID-19: A Promising Therapy? Content: At present, there are no proven agents for treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The available evidence has not allowed guidelines to clearly recommend any drugs outside the context of clinical trials. The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 invokes a hyperinflammatory state driven by multiple cells and mediators like interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-18, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), etc. Considering the proven role of cytokine dysregulation in causing this hyperinflammation in the lungs with IL-6 being a key driver, particularly in seriously ill COVID-19 patients, it is crucial to further explore selective cytokine blockade with drugs like the IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab. These targeted monoclonal antibodies can dampen the downstream IL-6 signaling pathways, which can lead to decreased cell proliferation, differentiation, oxidative stress, exudation, and improve clinical outcomes in patients with evident features of cytokine-driven inflammation like persistent fever, dyspnea and elevated markers. Preliminary evidence has come for tocilizumab from some small studies, and interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial; the latter also being available for sarilumab. International guidelines do include IL-6 inhibitors as one of the options available for severe or critically ill patients. There has been increased interest in evaluating these drugs with a series of clinical trials being registered and conducted in different countries. The level of investigation though perhaps needs to be further intensified as there is a need to focus on therapeutic options that can prove to be ‘life-saving’ as the number of COVID-19 fatalities worldwide keeps increasing alarmingly. IL-6 inhibitors could be one such treatment option, with generation of more evidence and completion of a larger number of systematic studies.

Title: IL-6 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Serious COVID-19: A Promising Therapy? Content: At present, there are no proven agents for treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The available evidence has not allowed guidelines to clearly recommend any drugs outside the context of clinical trials. The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 invokes a hyperinflammatory state driven by multiple cells and mediators like interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-18, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), etc. Considering the proven role of cytokine dysregulation in causing this hyperinflammation in the lungs with IL-6 being a key driver, particularly in seriously ill COVID-19 patients, it is crucial to further explore selective cytokine blockade with drugs like the IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab. These targeted monoclonal antibodies can dampen the downstream IL-6 signaling pathways, which can lead to decreased cell proliferation, differentiation, oxidative stress, exudation, and improve clinical outcomes in patients with evident features of cytokine-driven inflammation like persistent fever, dyspnea and elevated markers. Preliminary evidence has come for tocilizumab from some small studies, and interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial; the latter also being available for sarilumab. International guidelines do include IL-6 inhibitors as one of the options available for severe or critically ill patients. There has been increased interest in evaluating these drugs with a series of clinical trials being registered and conducted in different countries. The level of investigation though perhaps needs to be further intensified as there is a need to focus on therapeutic options that can prove to be 'life-saving' as the number of COVID-19 fatalities worldwide keeps increasing alarmingly. IL-6 inhibitors could be one such treatment option, with generation of more evidence and completion of a larger number of systematic studies.

Title: Drug Repurposing to find Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Content: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the strain of coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently there is no known vaccine or specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19 and so, there is an urgent need for expedite discovery of new therapeutics to combat the disease until a vaccine will be available worldwide. Drug repurposing is a strategy for identifying new uses for approved drugs that has the advantage (over conventional approaches that attempt to develop a drug from scratch) that time frame of the overall process can be significantly reduced because of the few number of clinical trial required. In this work, a virtual screening of FDA-approved drugs was performed for repositioning as potential inhibitors of the main protease Mpro of SARS-CoV-2. As a result of this study, 12 drugs are proposed as candidates for inhibitors of the Mpro enzyme. Some of the selected compounds are antiviral drugs that are already being tested in COVID-19 clinical trials (i.e. ribavirin) or are used to alleviate symptoms of the disease (i.e. codeine). Surprisingly, the most promising candidate is the naturally occurring broad spectrum antibiotic oxytetracycline. This compound has largely outperformed the remaining selected candidates along all filtering steps of our virtual screening protocol. If the activity of any of these drugs is experimentally corroborated, they could be used directly in clinical trials without the need for pre-clinical testing or safety evaluation since they are already used as drugs for other diseases.

Title: Missing clinical trial data: the knowledge gap in the safety of potential COVID-19 drugs Content: Abstract (290/300 words) Objectives: Several drugs are being repurposed for the treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic based on in vitro or early clinical findings. As these drugs are being used in varied regimens and dosages, it is important to enable synthesis of existing safety data from clinical trials. However, availability of safety information is limited by a lack of timely reporting of clinical trial results on public registries or through academic publication. We aimed to analyse the knowledge gap in safety data by quantifying the number of missing clinical trial results for drugs potentially being repurposed for COVID-19. Design: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for 19 drugs that have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Relevant clinical trials for any prior indication were listed by identifier (NCT number) and checked for timely result reporting (within 395 days of the primary completion date). Additionally, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using the NCT number to identify publications of results not listed on the registry. A second, blinded search of 10% of trials was conducted to assess reviewer concordance. Results: Of 3754 completed trials, 1516 (40.4%) did not post results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in the academic literature. 1172 (31.2%) completed trials had tabular results on ClinicalTrials.gov. A further 1066 (28.4%) completed trials had results from the literature search, but did not report results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Key drugs missing clinical trial results include hydroxychloroquine (37.0% completed trials unreported), favipiravir (77.8%) and lopinavir (40.5%). Conclusion: There is an important evidence gap for the safety of drugs being repurposed for COVID-19. This uncertainty could cause a large burden of additional morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. We recommend caution in experimental drug use for non-severe disease and urge clinical trial sponsors to report missing results retrospectively.

Title: The ICMR bulletin on targeted hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for Covid-19: Need to interpret with caution Content: The National Task Force for Covid-19 of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in a bulletin dated March 21, 2020 recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis in asymptomatic health care workers caring for suspected or confirmed patients and household contacts of confirmed patients. This is cause for concern with regard to bioethics and good clinical practice. The evidence for the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine is currently derived from open label trials and cell culture studies with no conclusive evidence available from randomised clinical trials. Hydroxychloroquine also carries contraindications in the case of conditions such as maculopathy, retinopathy and QTc prolongation and should be used with caution in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnancy, lactation and the elderly. Despite this, there has been a rush to procure and self-medicate with hydroxychloroquine, which has been addressed by the National Task Force. The WHO and the FDA have not found adequate evidence to recommend any specific medication for the treatment of Covid-19. While further evidence is awaited, including from trials registered with the FDA and the ICMR, it is recommended that the administration of hydroxychloroquine for chemo-prophylaxis be considered on a case by case basis with monitoring by a registered medical practitioner including electrocardiography (ECG). The potential for retinal and cardiac toxicity must also be borne in mind. It is further recommended that a public advisory regarding the need for caution in chemo-prophylaxis be made available in the public domain. Keywords: Coronavirus, Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, chemoprophylaxis, bioethics, evidence- based medicine.

Title: The ICMR bulletin on targeted hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for Covid-19: Need to interpret with caution. Content: The National Task Force for Covid-19 of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in a bulletin dated March 21, 2020 recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis in asymptomatic health care workers caring for suspected or confirmed patients and household contacts of confirmed patients. This is cause for concern with regard to bioethics and good clinical practice. The evidence for the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine is currently derived from open label trials and cell culture studies with no conclusive evidence available from randomised clinical trials. Hydroxychloroquine also carries contraindications in the case of conditions such as maculopathy, retinopathy and QTc prolongation and should be used with caution in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnancy, lactation and the elderly. Despite this, there has been a rush to procure and self-medicate with hydroxychloroquine, which has been addressed by the National Task Force. The WHO and the FDA have not found adequate evidence to recommend any specific medication for the treatment of Covid-19. While further evidence is awaited, including from trials registered with the FDA and the ICMR, it is recommended that the administration of hydroxychloroquine for chemo-prophylaxis be considered on a case by case basis with monitoring by a registered medical practitioner including electrocardiography (ECG). The potential for retinal and cardiac toxicity must also be borne in mind. It is further recommended that a public advisory regarding the need for caution in chemo-prophylaxis be made available in the public domain. Keywords: Coronavirus, Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, chemoprophylaxis, bioethics, evidence- based medicine.

Title: Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project) Content: BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Title: Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project) Content: BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an “active” comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or “active placebo”) for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787

Title: Current State of Research About Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Scoping Review. Content: Background: There is currently no effective treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal selection of interventions targeting the virus is unknown. Therefore, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support specific treatment against COVID-19 is urgently needed. The use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) might have a role in the treatment and symptomatic management of patients with COVID-19. It was aimed at providing an overview of the available evidence and ongoing trials concerning the effects of CHMs for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: This is a narrative review of relevant studies. Searches were conducted to identify documents published till April 22, 2020. Electronic databases, evidence-based collections, websites of relevant organizations, and trial registries were consulted. Results: A total of 25 guidelines on the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were identified. Four guidelines provided recommendations on the use of CHMs; these guidelines were developed in China and South Korea and were based on the consensus of experts exclusively. The remaining 21 guidelines provided no guidance on CHMs. No finished RCTs of CHMs for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 was found. According to the evidence evaluated in this review, a Cochrane review of CHMs for severe acute respiratory syndrome and five uncontrolled observational studies of the effects of CHMs in patients with COVID-19, the effects of CHMs for COVID-19 are unknown. A total of 52 ongoing clinical trials of CHM interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were found. These trials will be carried out mostly in China (n = 51). Forty (77%) of the ongoing trials will be randomized, whereas 12 (23%) have an unclear sequence generation procedure. Forty-seven trials (90%) will have a sample size <400 participants. Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, only the Chinese and the South Korean guidelines recommend CHMs as a treatment option for patients with COVID-19. These guidelines base their recommendations on the consensus of experts. Clinical guidelines or health authorities from other countries do not provide advice on CHMs. Due to the absence of RCT, there is currently no reliable evidence on the effects of any specific CHM intervention for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A high number of clinical trials of different herbal products are being currently conducted in China.

Title: Current State of Research About Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Scoping Review Content: Background: There is currently no effective treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal selection of interventions targeting the virus is unknown. Therefore, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support specific treatment against COVID-19 is urgently needed. The use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) might have a role in the treatment and symptomatic management of patients with COVID-19. It was aimed at providing an overview of the available evidence and ongoing trials concerning the effects of CHMs for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: This is a narrative review of relevant studies. Searches were conducted to identify documents published till April 22, 2020. Electronic databases, evidence-based collections, websites of relevant organizations, and trial registries were consulted. Results: A total of 25 guidelines on the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were identified. Four guidelines provided recommendations on the use of CHMs; these guidelines were developed in China and South Korea and were based on the consensus of experts exclusively. The remaining 21 guidelines provided no guidance on CHMs. No finished RCTs of CHMs for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 was found. According to the evidence evaluated in this review, a Cochrane review of CHMs for severe acute respiratory syndrome and five uncontrolled observational studies of the effects of CHMs in patients with COVID-19, the effects of CHMs for COVID-19 are unknown. A total of 52 ongoing clinical trials of CHM interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were found. These trials will be carried out mostly in China (n = 51). Forty (77%) of the ongoing trials will be randomized, whereas 12 (23%) have an unclear sequence generation procedure. Forty-seven trials (90%) will have a sample size <400 participants. Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, only the Chinese and the South Korean guidelines recommend CHMs as a treatment option for patients with COVID-19. These guidelines base their recommendations on the consensus of experts. Clinical guidelines or health authorities from other countries do not provide advice on CHMs. Due to the absence of RCT, there is currently no reliable evidence on the effects of any specific CHM intervention for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A high number of clinical trials of different herbal products are being currently conducted in China.

Title: Remdesivir in COVID-19: A critical review of pharmacology, pre-clinical and clinical studies Content: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Remdesivir is a broad spectrum anti-viral drug that has shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2, in vitro and in vivo. In absence of any effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), remdesivir has been tried for a compassionate use in severe COVID-19. Newer randomized controlled studies that have recently become available, showed a mixed result. We aimed to systematically search the literature to understand the pharmacology and clinical effects of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, ClinicalTrial.Org and MedRxiv database up till May 5, 2020 using specific key words such as "Remdesivir" or 'GS-5734â³ AND "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" and retrieved all the article published in English language, that have reported the pharmacology and the clinical outcomes of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Initial compassionate use of remdesivir has shown a fairly good result, but difficult to quantify, in the absence of control arm. While the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted in Wuhan, did not find any significant benefit compared to the control, the preliminary result of another similar multi-country trial has shown a significant faster time to recovery but without any difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir has shown a mixed result in patients with COVID-19 with an acceptable side effect. However, jury is still out while awaiting the results from the forthcoming trials.

Title: Remdesivir in COVID-19: A critical review of pharmacology, pre-clinical and clinical studies Content: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Remdesivir is a broad spectrum anti-viral drug that has shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2, in vitro and in vivo. In absence of any effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), remdesivir has been tried for a compassionate use in severe COVID-19. Newer randomized controlled studies that have recently become available, showed a mixed result. We aimed to systematically search the literature to understand the pharmacology and clinical effects of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, ClinicalTrial.Org and MedRxiv database up till May 5, 2020 using specific key words such as “Remdesivir” or ‘GS-5734″ AND “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2” and retrieved all the article published in English language, that have reported the pharmacology and the clinical outcomes of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Initial compassionate use of remdesivir has shown a fairly good result, but difficult to quantify, in the absence of control arm. While the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted in Wuhan, did not find any significant benefit compared to the control, the preliminary result of another similar multi-country trial has shown a significant faster time to recovery but without any difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir has shown a mixed result in patients with COVID-19 with an acceptable side effect. However, jury is still out while awaiting the results from the forthcoming trials.

Title: Telehealth in Urology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. How Much Can Telemedicine Be Useful During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic? Content: CONTEXT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused increased interest in the application of telehealth to provide care without exposing patients and physicians to the risk of contagion. The urological literature on the topic is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature and evaluate all the available studies on urological applications of telehealth. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: After registration on PROSPERO, we searched PubMed and Scopus databases to collect any kind of studies evaluating any telehealth interventions in any urological conditions. The National Toxicology Program/Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies was used to estimate the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 45 studies (11 concerning prostate cancer [PCa], three hematuria management, six urinary stones, 14 urinary incontinence [UI], five urinary tract infections [UTIs], and six other conditions), including 12 randomized controlled trials. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been implemented successfully in several common clinical scenarios, including the decision-making process following a diagnosis of nonmetastatic PCa, follow-up care of patients with localized PCa after curative treatments, initial diagnosis of hematuria, management diagnosis and follow-up care of uncomplicated urinary stones and uncomplicated UTIs, and initial evaluation, behavioral therapies, and pelvic floor muscle training in UI patients, as well as follow-up care after surgical treatments of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. The methodological quality of most of the reports was good. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth has been implemented successfully in selected patients with PCa, UI, pelvic organ prolapse, uncomplicated urinary stones, and UTIs. Many urological conditions are suitable for telehealth, but more studies are needed on other highly prevalent urological malignant and benign conditions. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine. More robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and health economics are necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY: The diffusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections has recently increased the interest in telehealth, which is the adoption of telecommunication to deliver any health care activity. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been adopted successfully in selected patients with several common clinical urological conditions, including prostate cancer, uncomplicated urinary stones, uncomplicated urinary infections, urinary incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine, but more robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and costs are necessary.

Title: Telehealth in Urology: A Systematic Review of the Literature. How Much Can Telemedicine Be Useful During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic? Content: Abstract Context Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused increased interest in the application of telehealth to provide care without exposing patients and physicians to the risk of contagion. The urological literature on the topic is sparse. Objective To perform a systematic review of the literature and evaluate all the available studies on urological applications of telehealth. Evidence acquisition After registration on PROSPERO, we searched PubMed and Scopus databases to collect any kind of studies evaluating any telehealth interventions in any urological conditions. The National Toxicology Program/Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies was used to estimate the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence synthesis We identified 45 studies (11 concerning prostate cancer [PCa], three hematuria management, six urinary stones, 14 urinary incontinence [UI], five urinary tract infections [UTIs], and six other conditions), including 12 randomized controlled trials. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been implemented successfully in several common clinical scenarios, including the decision-making process following a diagnosis of nonmetastatic PCa, follow-up care of patients with localized PCa after curative treatments, initial diagnosis of hematuria, management diagnosis and follow-up care of uncomplicated urinary stones and uncomplicated UTIs, and initial evaluation, behavioral therapies, and pelvic floor muscle training in UI patients, as well as follow-up care after surgical treatments of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. The methodological quality of most of the reports was good. Conclusions Telehealth has been implemented successfully in selected patients with PCa, UI, pelvic organ prolapse, uncomplicated urinary stones, and UTIs. Many urological conditions are suitable for telehealth, but more studies are needed on other highly prevalent urological malignant and benign conditions. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine. More robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and health economics are necessary. Patient summary The diffusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections has recently increased the interest in telehealth, which is the adoption of telecommunication to deliver any health care activity. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been adopted successfully in selected patients with several common clinical urological conditions, including prostate cancer, uncomplicated urinary stones, uncomplicated urinary infections, urinary incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse. Likely, the COVID-19 pandemic will give a significant boost to the use of telemedicine, but more robust data on long-term efficacy, safety, and costs are necessary.

Title: Use of Remdesivir in the Management of COVID-19: A Systematic Review on Current Evidences. Content: The rapid progression of corona virus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become an unprecedented global concern. This systemic review aimed at evaluating the available evidence on efficacy, safety to identify any promising role for compassionate use of remdesivir in patient suffered for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) as re-purposeful use. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective case series studies and case reports that evaluated use of remdesivir in COVID-19. The outcomes were mortality, recovery rate, length of hospital stay and clinical outcome. Though the drug remdesivir (RDV) is not approved by the FDA, still the "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) for compassionate use in severe cases is endorsed. After vigorous searching, screening and sorting of completed and published scientific evidences in electronic database, there were only 2 randomized control trial (RCT), 2 uncontrolled trials found until April 2020. We also included 3 published case reports to analyze the validity use of RDV because of the scarcity of evidence based reports. Remdesivir was thought to be one of the promising options for treating the patients of COVID-19 based on few laboratory experiments and reports from some compassionate use and case reports. The safety and efficacy of this drug in COVID-19 cases require high-quality evidence from well-designed and adequately-powered clinical trials with proper sample size for precise decision.

Title: Clinical evidence for repurposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as antiviral agents: a systematic review Content: BACKGROUND: Repurposing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) as antiviral agents is a re-emerging topic with new viral epidemics. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence from human clinical studies for using HCQ or CQ as antiviral agents for any viral infection. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science for published studies without time or language restrictions. Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry and Chinese Clinical Trials Registry for trials registered after 2015. MedRxiv for pre-prints within the last 12 months. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventional and prospective observational studies (with or without a control group) PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children with a confirmed viral infection. INTERVENTION: Use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as antiviral agents in one or more groups of the study. METHODS: Two authors independently screened abstracts and all authors agreed on eligible studies. A meta-analysis was planned if similar studies were available in terms of participants, intervention, comparator and outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were eligible (HIV: 8, HCV: 2, Dengue: 2, Chikungunya: 1, COVID-19: 6) including two pre-prints. Nine and ten studies assessed CQ and HCQ respectively. Benefits of either drug for viral load suppression in HIV is inconsistent. CQ is ineffective in curing dengue (high certainty evidence) and may have little or no benefit in curing chikungunya (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for COVID-19 infection is rapidly evolving but at this stage we are unsure if CQ or HCQ has any benefit in clearing viraemia (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Using HCQ or CQ for HIV/HCV infections is clinically irrelevant now as other effective antivirals are available for viral load suppression (HIV) and cure (HCV). There is no benefit of CQ in dengue and the same conclusion is likely for chikungunya infection. More evidence is needed to confirm if HCQ or CQ is beneficial in COVID-19 infection.

Title: Current Evidence of the Pharmacological Treatments for Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) A Scoping Review Content: Background: As of May 2 2020, 3,267,184 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 229,971 COVID-19-caused deaths have been reported worldwide. Currently, there is limited clarity on the pharmacological treatments available for the novel coronavirus. We systematically identified the current evidence and ongoing research on the pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using PRISMA-ScR. Observational studies, including cohort studies and case series, as well as experimental studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were searched electronically on April 7, 2020 and by hand on May 1, 2020. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched along with seven trial registries. The inclusion criteria were patients with confirmed COVID-19 who received pharmacological therapies, including hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and favipiravir. Results: We identified 222 studies on pharmacological treatment of the novel coronavirus. We included 11 of these studies in this review, including the ones on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine (one cohort), lopinavir/ritonavir (one RCT, three cohorts, and two case series), remdesivir (one RCT and one case series), tocilizumab (one case series), and favipiravir (one RCT). In the three RCTs carried out in China, both lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir did not show any significant earlier clinical improvement in case of severe infection [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.31, p=0.09 and HR: 1.24, p=0.24, respectively], The clinical recovery rate on day seven was not significantly different between the favipiravir and arbidol groups (p=0.14) for moderate patients, although the duration of pyrexia and cough in the favipiravir group was significantly shorter as compared to the arbidol group (p<0.01). There are 135 ongoing RCTs, including 72 for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, 29 for lopinavir/ritonavir, 14 for remdesivir, 16 for tocilizumab, and 4 for favipiravir. Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness and safety of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 remains unclear owing to the lack of large, high-quality RCTs. However, in the event of emerging infectious diseases, we need to repeatedly and systematically update the best available evidence to avoid misleading information.

Title: Review of safety and minimum pricing of nitazoxanide for potential treatment of COVID-19 Content: BACKGROUND: Many treatments are being assessed for repurposing to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One drug that has shown promising results in vitro is nitazoxanide. Unlike other postulated drugs, nitazoxanide shows a high ratio of maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), after 1 day of 500 mg twice daily (BD), to the concentration required to inhibit 50% replication (EC(50)) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (C(max): EC(50)roughly equal to 14:1). As such, it is important to investigate the safety of nitazoxanide for further trials. Furthermore, treatments for COVID-19 should be cheap to promote global access, but prices of many drugs are far higher than the costs of production. We aimed to conduct a review of the safety of nitazoxanide for any prior indication and calculate its minimum costs of production. METHODS: A review of nitazoxanide clinical research was conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched for phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitazoxanide with placebo or active control for 5–14 days in participants experiencing acute infections of any kind. Data extracted were grade 1–4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Data were also extracted on gastrointestinal (GI) AEs, as well as hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects. Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost data from 2016 to 2019 were extracted from the Panjiva database and adjusted for 5% loss during production, costs of excipients, formulation, a 10% profit margin and tax. Two dosages, at 500 mg BD and a higher dose of 1100 mg three times daily (TDS), were considered. Our estimated costs were compared with publicly available list prices from a selection of countries. RESULTS: Nine RCTs of nitazoxanide were identified for inclusion. These RCTs accounted for 1514 participants and an estimated 95.3 person-years-of-follow-up. No significant differences were found in any of the AE endpoints assessed, across all trials or on subgroup analyses of active- or placebo-controlled trials. Mild GI AEs increased with dose. No hepatorenal or cardiovascular concerns were raised, but few appropriate metrics were reported. There were no teratogenic concerns, but the evidence base was very limited. Based on a weighted-mean cost of US $61/kg, a 14-day course of treatment with nitazoxanide 500 mg BD would cost $1.41. The daily cost would therefore be $0.10. The same 14-day course could cost $3944 in US commercial pharmacies, and $3 per course in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At a higher dose of 1100 mg TDS, our estimated cost was $4.08 per 14-day course, equivalent to $0.29 per day. CONCLUSION: Nitazoxanide demonstrates a good safety profile at approved doses. However, further evidence is required regarding hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects, as well as teratogenicity. We estimate that it would be possible to manufacture nitazoxanide as generic for $1.41 for a 14-day treatment course at 500 mg BD, up to $4.08 at 1100 mg TDS. Further trials in COVID-19 patients should be initiated. If efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated in clinical studies, nitazoxanide may represent a safe and affordable treatment in the ongoing pandemic.

Title: Review of safety and minimum pricing of nitazoxanide for potential treatment of COVID-19. Content: Background Many treatments are being assessed for repurposing to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One drug that has shown promising results in vitro is nitazoxanide. Unlike other postulated drugs, nitazoxanide shows a high ratio of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), after 1 day of 500 mg twice daily (BD), to the concentration required to inhibit 50% replication (EC50) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Cmax : EC50 roughly equal to 14:1). As such, it is important to investigate the safety of nitazoxanide for further trials. Furthermore, treatments for COVID-19 should be cheap to promote global access, but prices of many drugs are far higher than the costs of production. We aimed to conduct a review of the safety of nitazoxanide for any prior indication and calculate its minimum costs of production. Methods A review of nitazoxanide clinical research was conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched for phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitazoxanide with placebo or active control for 5-14 days in participants experiencing acute infections of any kind. Data extracted were grade 1-4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Data were also extracted on gastrointestinal (GI) AEs, as well as hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects.Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost data from 2016 to 2019 were extracted from the Panjiva database and adjusted for 5% loss during production, costs of excipients, formulation, a 10% profit margin and tax. Two dosages, at 500 mg BD and a higher dose of 1100 mg three times daily (TDS), were considered. Our estimated costs were compared with publicly available list prices from a selection of countries. Results Nine RCTs of nitazoxanide were identified for inclusion. These RCTs accounted for 1514 participants and an estimated 95.3 person-years-of-follow-up. No significant differences were found in any of the AE endpoints assessed, across all trials or on subgroup analyses of active- or placebo-controlled trials. Mild GI AEs increased with dose. No hepatorenal or cardiovascular concerns were raised, but few appropriate metrics were reported. There were no teratogenic concerns, but the evidence base was very limited.Based on a weighted-mean cost of US $61/kg, a 14-day course of treatment with nitazoxanide 500 mg BD would cost $1.41. The daily cost would therefore be $0.10. The same 14-day course could cost $3944 in US commercial pharmacies, and $3 per course in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At a higher dose of 1100 mg TDS, our estimated cost was $4.08 per 14-day course, equivalent to $0.29 per day. Conclusion Nitazoxanide demonstrates a good safety profile at approved doses. However, further evidence is required regarding hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects, as well as teratogenicity. We estimate that it would be possible to manufacture nitazoxanide as generic for $1.41 for a 14-day treatment course at 500 mg BD, up to $4.08 at 1100 mg TDS. Further trials in COVID-19 patients should be initiated. If efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated in clinical studies, nitazoxanide may represent a safe and affordable treatment in the ongoing pandemic.

Title: Review of safety and minimum pricing of nitazoxanide for potential treatment of COVID-19 Content: Background: Many treatments are being assessed for repurposing to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) One drug that has shown promising results in vitro is nitazoxanide Unlike other postulated drugs, nitazoxanide shows a high ratio of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), after 1 day of 500 mg twice daily (BD), to the concentration required to inhibit 50% replication (EC50) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Cmax : EC50 roughly equal to 14:1) As such, it is important to investigate the safety of nitazoxanide for further trials Furthermore, treatments for COVID-19 should be cheap to promote global access, but prices of many drugs are far higher than the costs of production We aimed to conduct a review of the safety of nitazoxanide for any prior indication and calculate its minimum costs of production Methods: A review of nitazoxanide clinical research was conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by ClinicalTrials gov We searched for phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitazoxanide with placebo or active control for 5-14 days in participants experiencing acute infections of any kind Data extracted were grade 1-4 and serious adverse events (AEs) Data were also extracted on gastrointestinal (GI) AEs, as well as hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost data from 2016 to 2019 were extracted from the Panjiva database and adjusted for 5% loss during production, costs of excipients, formulation, a 10% profit margin and tax Two dosages, at 500 mg BD and a higher dose of 1100 mg three times daily (TDS), were considered Our estimated costs were compared with publicly available list prices from a selection of countries Results: Nine RCTs of nitazoxanide were identified for inclusion These RCTs accounted for 1514 participants and an estimated 95 3 person-years-of-follow-up No significant differences were found in any of the AE endpoints assessed, across all trials or on subgroup analyses of active- or placebo-controlled trials Mild GI AEs increased with dose No hepatorenal or cardiovascular concerns were raised, but few appropriate metrics were reported There were no teratogenic concerns, but the evidence base was very limited Based on a weighted-mean cost of US $61/kg, a 14-day course of treatment with nitazoxanide 500 mg BD would cost $1 41 The daily cost would therefore be $0 10 The same 14-day course could cost $3944 in US commercial pharmacies, and $3 per course in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh At a higher dose of 1100 mg TDS, our estimated cost was $4 08 per 14-day course, equivalent to $0 29 per day Conclusion: Nitazoxanide demonstrates a good safety profile at approved doses However, further evidence is required regarding hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects, as well as teratogenicity We estimate that it would be possible to manufacture nitazoxanide as generic for $1 41 for a 14-day treatment course at 500 mg BD, up to $4 08 at 1100 mg TDS Further trials in COVID-19 patients should be initiated If efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated in clinical studies, nitazoxanide may represent a safe and affordable treatment in the ongoing pandemic

Title: Review of safety and minimum pricing of nitazoxanide for potential treatment of COVID-19 Content: BACKGROUND: Many treatments are being assessed for repurposing to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One drug that has shown promising results in vitro is nitazoxanide. Unlike other postulated drugs, nitazoxanide shows a high ratio of maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), after 1 day of 500 mg twice daily (BD), to the concentration required to inhibit 50% replication (EC(50)) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (C(max ): EC(50 )roughly equal to 14:1). As such, it is important to investigate the safety of nitazoxanide for further trials. Furthermore, treatments for COVID-19 should be cheap to promote global access, but prices of many drugs are far higher than the costs of production. We aimed to conduct a review of the safety of nitazoxanide for any prior indication and calculate its minimum costs of production. METHODS: A review of nitazoxanide clinical research was conducted using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases, supplemented by ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched for phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitazoxanide with placebo or active control for 5–14 days in participants experiencing acute infections of any kind. Data extracted were grade 1–4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Data were also extracted on gastrointestinal (GI) AEs, as well as hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects. Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost data from 2016 to 2019 were extracted from the Panjiva database and adjusted for 5% loss during production, costs of excipients, formulation, a 10% profit margin and tax. Two dosages, at 500 mg BD and a higher dose of 1100 mg three times daily (TDS), were considered. Our estimated costs were compared with publicly available list prices from a selection of countries. RESULTS: Nine RCTs of nitazoxanide were identified for inclusion. These RCTs accounted for 1514 participants and an estimated 95.3 person-years-of-follow-up. No significant differences were found in any of the AE endpoints assessed, across all trials or on subgroup analyses of active- or placebo-controlled trials. Mild GI AEs increased with dose. No hepatorenal or cardiovascular concerns were raised, but few appropriate metrics were reported. There were no teratogenic concerns, but the evidence base was very limited. Based on a weighted-mean cost of US $61/kg, a 14-day course of treatment with nitazoxanide 500 mg BD would cost $1.41. The daily cost would therefore be $0.10. The same 14-day course could cost $3944 in US commercial pharmacies, and $3 per course in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. At a higher dose of 1100 mg TDS, our estimated cost was $4.08 per 14-day course, equivalent to $0.29 per day. CONCLUSION: Nitazoxanide demonstrates a good safety profile at approved doses. However, further evidence is required regarding hepatorenal and cardiovascular effects, as well as teratogenicity. We estimate that it would be possible to manufacture nitazoxanide as generic for $1.41 for a 14-day treatment course at 500 mg BD, up to $4.08 at 1100 mg TDS. Further trials in COVID-19 patients should be initiated. If efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated in clinical studies, nitazoxanide may represent a safe and affordable treatment in the ongoing pandemic.

Title: Medication for COVID-19-an Overview of Approaches Currently Under Study Content: BACKGROUND: With the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is becoming increasingly urgent to develop a vaccine to prevent COVID-19, as well as effective drugs to treat it. METHODS: This article is based on a selective literature search in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, followed by an assessment of the ongoing clinical trials that were revealed by the search. RESULTS: A number of substances have been found to prevent the reproduction of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. These include virustatic agents that have already been approved for the treatment of other types of viral infection, as well as drugs that are currently used for entirely different purposes. High in vitro activity has been found for the nucleotide analogue remdesivir, for the antimalarial drug chloroquine, and for nitazoxanide, a drug used to treat protozoan infections. Because the virus enters human cells by way of the membrane-associated angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), keeping the virus from docking to this receptor is a conceivable treatment approach. Transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) plays a role in the fusion of the virus with cells; inhibitors of this enzyme are known as well. The potential therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of these and other active substances remain to be investigated in clinical trials. At present, more than 80 trials on COVID-10 have already been registered with Clinical- Trials.gov. Some initial findings should already be available in late April 2020. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials are now indispensable in order to determine the true clinical benefits and risks of the substances that have been found to be active against SARSCoV- 2 in vitro. There is not yet any recommendation for the therapeutic use of any particular agent beyond standard supportive treatment.

Title: Clinical evidence for repurposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as antiviral agents: a systematic review Content: BACKGROUND: Repurposing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) as antiviral agents is a re-emerging topic with the advent of new viral epidemics. AIMS: To summarize evidence from human clinical studies for using HCQ or CQ as antiviral agents for any viral infection. SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science for published studies without time or language restrictions; Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry and Chinese Clinical Trials Registry for trials registered after 2015; MedRxiv for preprints within the last 12 months. CONTENT: Study eligibility criteria were interventional and prospective observational studies (with or without a control group). Participants were adults and children with a confirmed viral infection. Interventions included the use of CQ or HCQ as antiviral agent in one or more groups of the study. Two authors independently screened abstracts, and all authors agreed on eligible studies. A meta-analysis was planned if studies were available which were similar in terms of participants, intervention, comparator and outcomes. Nineteen studies (including two preprints) were eligible (HIV 8, HCV 2, dengue 2, chikungunya 1, COVID-19 6). Nine and ten studies assessed CQ and HCQ respectively. Benefits of either drug for viral load suppression in HIV are inconsistent. CQ is ineffective in curing dengue (high-certainty evidence) and may have little or no benefit in curing chikungunya (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for COVID-19 infection is rapidly evolving but at this stage we are unsure whether either CQ or HCQ has any benefit in clearing viraemia (very-low-certainty evidence). IMPLICATIONS: Using HCQ or CQ for HIV/HCV infections is now clinically irrelevant as other effective antivirals are available for viral load suppression (HIV) and cure (HCV). There is no benefit of CQ in dengue, and the same conclusion is likely for chikungunya. More evidence is needed to confirm whether either HCQ or CQ is beneficial in COVID-19 infection.

Title: Medication for COVID-19—an Overview of Approaches Currently Under Study Content: BACKGROUND: With the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is becoming increasingly urgent to develop a vaccine to prevent COVID-19, as well as effective drugs to treat it. METHODS: This article is based on a selective literature search in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, followed by an assessment of the ongoing clinical trials that were revealed by the search. RESULTS: A number of substances have been found to prevent the reproduction of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. These include virustatic agents that have already been approved for the treatment of other types of viral infection, as well as drugs that are currently used for entirely different purposes. High in vitro activity has been found for the nucleotide analogue remdesivir, for the antimalarial drug chloroquine, and for nitazoxanide, a drug used to treat protozoan infections. Because the virus enters human cells by way of the membrane-associated angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), keeping the virus from docking to this receptor is a conceivable treatment approach. Transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) plays a role in the fusion of the virus with cells; inhibitors of this enzyme are known as well. The potential therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of these and other active substances remain to be investigated in clinical trials. At present, more than 80 trials on COVID-10 have already been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Some initial findings should already be available in late April 2020. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials are now indispensable in order to determine the true clinical benefits and risks of the substances that have been found to be active against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. There is not yet any recommendation for the therapeutic use of any particular agent beyond standard supportive treatment.

Title: Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure Content: Controlled human challenge trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates could accelerate the testing and potential rollout of efficacious vaccines. By replacing conventional phase 3 testing of vaccine candidates, such trials may subtract many months from the licensure process, making efficacious vaccines available more quickly. Obviously, challenging volunteers with this live virus risks inducing severe disease and possibly even death. However, we argue that such studies, by accelerating vaccine evaluation, could reduce the global burden of coronavirus-related mortality and morbidity. Volunteers in such studies could autonomously authorize the risks to themselves, and their net risk could be acceptable if participants comprise healthy young adults, who are at relatively low risk of serious disease following natural infection, if they have a high baseline risk of natural infection, and if during the trial they receive frequent monitoring and, following any infection, the best available care.

Title: Is there any supportive evidence for low dose radiotherapy for COVID-19 pneumonia? Content: Since early April 2020, there has been intense debate over proposed clinical use of ionizing radiation to treat life-threatening pneumonia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. At least twelve relevant papers appeared by 20 May 2020. The radiation dose proposed for clinical trials are a single dose (0.1-1 Gy) or two doses (a few mGy followed by 0.1-0.25 Gy involving a putative adaptive response, or 1-1.5 Gy in two fractions 2-3 days apart). The scientific rationale for such proposed so-called low dose radiotherapy (LDRT) is twofold (note that only doses below 0.1 Gy are considered as low doses in the field of radiation protection, but here we follow the term as conventionally used in the field of radiation oncology). Firstly, the potentially positive observations in human case series and biological studies in rodent models on viral or bacterial pneumonia that were conducted in the pre-antibiotic era. Secondly, the potential anti-inflammatory properties of LDRT, which have been seen when LDRT is applied locally to subacute degenerative joint diseases, mainly in Germany. However, the human and animal studies cited as supportive evidence have significant limitations, and whether LDRT produces anti-inflammatory effects in the inflamed lung or exacerbates ongoing COVID-19 damage remains unclear. Therefore, we conclude that the available scientific evidence does not justify clinical trials of LDRT for COVID-19 pneumonia, with unknown benefit and known mortality risks from radiogenic cancer and circulatory disease. Despite the significant uncertainties in these proposals, some clinical trials are ongoing and planned. This paper gives an overview of current situations surrounding LDRT for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Title: Human Coronavirus Data from Four Clinical Trials of Masks and Respirators Content: There are few published data on the protection of masks or respirators against coronavirus infections. This is an important research question to inform the response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The transmission modes of human coronaviruses are similar, thought to be by droplet, contact and sometimes airborne routes. There are several randomised clinical trials of masks and respirators, but most used clinical endpoints or tested only for influenza. In four trials which we conducted, we tested for human coronaviruses, but only composite viral endpoints were reported in the trials. We reviewed and analysed the coronavirus data from four of our trials. Laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infections were identified in our community household trial (1 case), health worker trials (8 cases) and trial of mask use by sick patients (19 cases). No coronavirus infections were transmitted in households to parents who wore P2 or surgical masks, but one child with coronavirus infection transmitted infection to a parent in the control arm. No transmissions to close contacts occurred when worn by sick patients with coronavirus infections. There was a higher risk of coronavirus infection in HCWs who wore a mask compared to a respirator, but the difference was not statistically significant. These are the only available data on coronavirus infections associated with mask or respirator use. More clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of respiratory protection against coronavirus infections.

Title: HUMAN CORONAVIRUS DATA FROM FOUR CLINICAL TRIALS OF MASKS AND RESPIRATORS Content: There are few published data on the protection of masks or respirators against coronavirus infections. This is an important research question to inform the response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The transmission modes of human coronaviruses are similar, thought to be by droplet, contact and sometimes airborne routes. There are several randomised clinical trials of masks and respirators, but most used clinical endpoints or tested only for influenza. In four trials which we conducted, we tested for human coronaviruses, but only composite viral endpoints were reported in the trials. We reviewed and analysed the coronavirus data from four of our trials. Laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infections were identified in our community household trial (1 case), health worker trials (8 cases) and trial of mask use by sick patients (19 cases). No coronavirus infections were transmitted in households to parents who wore P2 or surgical masks, but one child with coronavirus infection transmitted infection to a parent in the control arm. No transmissions to close contacts occurred when worn by sick patients with coronavirus infections. There was a higher risk of coronavirus infection in HCWs who wore a mask compared to a respirator, but the difference was not statistically significant. These are the only available data on coronavirus infections associated with mask or respirator use. More clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of respiratory protection against coronavirus infections.

Title: Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cornucopia of Viral Pathogens Content: OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and types of respiratory viruses circulating in Boston long-term care facilities (LTCFs) during a 3-year period. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: Thirty-three Boston-area LTCFs over a 3-year period. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of long-term care who had previously participated in a trial of vitamin E supplementation and had paired serum samples available for viral analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Viral antibody titers to eight respiratory viruses (influenza A and B, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus serotype three (PIV-3), PIV-2, human metapneumovirus (hMPV), and coronaviruses 229E and OC43) were measured using enzyme immunoassay at baseline and 53 weeks. Infection was defined as a more than quadrupling of viral titers. Clinical data on respiratory illnesses were collected throughout the study period. RESULTS: A total of 617 persons were enrolled in the trial. Of these, 382 (62%) had sera available for viral analysis. A total of 204 viral infections were documented in 157 subjects. Serological responses to all eight viruses were documented, with hMPV (12.8%) and coronavirus 229E (10.5%) being the most common and PIV-2 (2.4%) the least common. The occurrence of bronchitis (P = .007), pneumonia (P = .02), and any lower respiratory tract infection (P = .002) was significantly associated with having a viral diagnosis. CONCLUSION: A wide range of respiratory viruses cocirculates in LTCFs and contributes to respiratory illness morbidity in these populations.

Title: Clinical trials on drug repositioning for COVID-19 treatment Content: The World Health Organization (WHO) was informed on December 2019 about a coronavirus pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, Hubei province (China). Subsequently, on March 12, 2020, 125,048 cases and 4,614 deaths were reported. Coronavirus is an enveloped RNA virus, from the genus Betacoronavirus, that is distributed in birds, humans, and other mammals. WHO has named the novel coronavirus disease as COVID-19. More than 80 clinical trials have been launched to test coronavirus treatment, including some drug repurposing or repositioning for COVID-19. Hence, we performed a search in March 2020 of the clinicaltrials.gov database. The eligibility criteria for the retrieved studies were: contain a clinicaltrials.gov base identifier number; describe the number of participants and the period for the study; describe the participants’ clinical conditions; and utilize interventions with medicines already studied or approved for any other disease in patients infected with the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV). It is essential to emphasize that this article only captured trials listed in the clinicaltrials.gov database. We identified 24 clinical trials, involving more than 20 medicines, such as human immunoglobulin, interferons, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, arbidol, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir, ritonavir, oseltamivir, methylprednisolone, bevacizumab, and traditional Chinese medicines (TCM). Although drug repurposing has some limitations, repositioning clinical trials may represent an attractive strategy because they facilitate the discovery of new classes of medicines; they have lower costs and take less time to reach the market; and there are existing pharmaceutical supply chains for formulation and distribution.

Title: Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials. Content: BACKGROUND Standardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent. METHODS RCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted. RESULTS Of 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper. CONCLUSION Despite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials.

Title: Mechanistic rationale of drugs, Primary endpoints, Geographical distribution of clinical trials against Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2: A Systematic Review Content: Objective To do a systematic review and critical appraisal of the ongoing clinical trials that are assessing various therapeutic interventions against SARS-CoV-2 with an aim to provide insight into the various interventions tested, clinical rationale, geographical distribution of the trials as well as the endpoints assessed in the studies. Design Rapid systematic review and critical appraisal of the ongoing clinical trials against SARS-CoV-2. Data sources ClinicalTrials.gov, World health organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Cochrane COVID registry were assessed till May 11th 2020. Study selection Studies on any intervention based randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical studies on SARS-CoV-2 in patients [≥]18 years of age. Studies on autopsy series, preclinical studies, diagnostic methods, mathematical modelling, epidemiology and health services research, pediatric populations were excluded. Data extraction The data was extracted by two authors independently into pre-defined forms based on the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The data was extracted on various domains such as trial number, study title, abstract of the study, interventions assessed, sample size, phase of the study, study sponsor, primary endpoint assessed and country of study. Results The search resulted in 3242 ongoing studies of which 829 studies were included. There are 134 different drug-based interventions being assessed in 463 clinical trials as treatment options. Seventy-two studies assessed preventive options of which 53 are drug-based prophylaxis and 19 assessed vaccines. Herbal medicines are being assessed in 79 studies; convalescent plasma therapy in 56 studies; stem cell based interventions in 42 studies; anesthesia-based interventions in 31 studies, machine-based interventions in 24 studies, mental health- based interventions in18 studies, rehabilitation based interventions in 12 studies and miscellaneous interventions in 32 studies. China accounts for 35% of all ongoing clinical studies followed by USA 23%, France 7%, Spain 3.3%,Canada 2%, multi-country studies account only for 1.5% (13) and other countries together account for 28%.Amongst the 463 studies assessing drug-based treatment options, studies that are funded by federal and academic institutions are 79.6%, pharmaceutical company funded studies are 15.11% and no funding information is available in 5.10%. The definitive outcomes like mortality are being assessed as primary outcome in 22.8% of the studies only and need for ventilator in 6.2% of the studies. Rest of the studies has primary outcomes such as clinical recovery (15.9%), viral clearance(17.4%), time to recovery (10.1%), oxygen improvement (5.6%), ICU admission (1.9%), lab and imaging(6.4%), adverse effects (5.3%) and symptom reduction(1.5%),no outcome reported(6.2%) which account for 71% of the studies. Amongst the pharmaceutical company funded drug-based studies, only 20% of the studies had mortality as the primary outcome. Only 5.5% of the ongoing clinical trials are specifically designed to assess the most vulnerable population like elderly, patients with comorbidities and cancer. The most common intervention being tested against COVID-19 are antimalarial medications with 105 clinical studies. Hydroxychloroquine is the most common drug being tested with 83 ongoing studies. Conclusion Multiple intervention based clinical studies against SARS-CoV-2 are being performed throughout the world with a high concentration of clinical trials in the developed world. There is a high concern that most of the studies maybe repetitive; elderly and patients with comorbidities are being underrepresented; definite endpoints like mortality are being assessed in only one-fifth of the studies.

Title: An overview of coronaviruses including the SARS-2 coronavirus – Molecular biology, epidemiology and clinical implications Content: Abstract Coronavirus infections have emerged as epidemic and pandemic threats in last two decades. After the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, recently diagnosed novel betacoronavirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 has spread across 203 countries and territories in all 5 major continents. World Health Organization (WHO) declared this as a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020. Subsequently on February 11, 2020 a new name was given to this disease i.e. COVID-19 by an expert group from WHO. As of April 12, 2020, 10:00 CET, GMT+2:00, 1,696,588 confirmed cases and 105,952 confirmed deaths have been reported to the WHO. (Coronavirus disease 2019, situation report 83). It possibly originated from a small animal market in Wuhan, China. A cluster of patients were admitted with unusual pneumonia not responding to treatment in various hospitals. Epidemiological, genomic analysis and correlation with other coronaviruses led to the isolation of new coronavirus, closely resembling the bat coronaviruses, from such patients in Wuhan. They were identified as the SARS-CoV-2. This virus infection presents as influenza like illness in the affected people. Fever, cough, respiratory distress with fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting are common symptoms seen in adults. This may progress on to respiratory distress, hypoxia, need for oxygen supplementation and ventilator support as seen in patients in the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic (2003) in Guangdong, China. The transmissibility of SARS-CoV-1 was less as compared to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it was well controlled with good public health efforts. The present COVID-19 epidemic is still in the acceleration phase of 3 and 4 in various countries. Without any effective antiviral agents available at present, the need of the hour is early case detection, isolation of cases, use of good preventive care measures by the household contacts and in the hospital set up. The results of ongoing clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin alone or in combination and a new antiviral agent remdesivir may help to treat some of the infections. A need for effective vaccine is being seen an as good preventive strategy in this pandemic. However the results of clinical trials and incorporation of vaccines in public health programs is a long way to go.

Title: An overview of coronaviruses including the SARS-2 coronavirus - Molecular biology, epidemiology and clinical implications Content: Coronavirus infections have emerged as epidemic and pandemic threats in last two decades. After the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, recently diagnosed novel betacoronavirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 has spread across 203 countries and territories in all 5 major continents. World Health Organization (WHO) declared this as a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020. Subsequently on February 11, 2020 a new name was given to this disease i.e. COVID-19 by an expert group from WHO. As of April 12, 2020, 10:00 CET, GMT+2:00, 1,696,588 confirmed cases and 105,952 confirmed deaths have been reported to the WHO. (Coronavirus disease 2019, situation report 83). It possibly originated from a small animal market in Wuhan, China. A cluster of patients were admitted with unusual pneumonia not responding to treatment in various hospitals. Epidemiological, genomic analysis and correlation with other coronaviruses led to the isolation of new coronavirus, closely resembling the bat coronaviruses, from such patients in Wuhan. They were identified as the SARS-CoV-2. This virus infection presents as influenza like illness in the affected people. Fever, cough, respiratory distress with fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting are common symptoms seen in adults. This may progress on to respiratory distress, hypoxia, need for oxygen supplementation and ventilator support as seen in patients in the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic (2003) in Guangdong, China. The transmissibility of SARS-CoV-1 was less as compared to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it was well controlled with good public health efforts. The present COVID-19 epidemic is still in the acceleration phase of 3 and 4 in various countries. Without any effective antiviral agents available at present, the need of the hour is early case detection, isolation of cases, use of good preventive care measures by the household contacts and in the hospital set up. The results of ongoing clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin alone or in combination and a new antiviral agent remdesivir may help to treat some of the infections. A need for effective vaccine is being seen an as good preventive strategy in this pandemic. However the results of clinical trials and incorporation of vaccines in public health programs is a long way to go.

Title: Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine derivatives in COVID-19 Infection: Comparative meta-analysis between the Big data and the real world Content: In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of chloroquine derivatives in patients, based on unpublished and published reports available publicly on the internet as of May, 27, 2020 The keywords “hydroxychloroquine”, “chloroquine”, “coronavirus”, “COVID-19” and “SARS-Cov-2” were used in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Google search engines without any restrictions as to date or language Twenty studies were identified involving 105,040 patients (19,270 treated patients) from nine countries (Brazil, China, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, and USA) Big data observational studies were associated with conflict of interest, lack of treatment dosage and duration, and absence of favorable outcome Clinical studies were associated with favorable outcomes and details on therapy Among clinical studies, three of four randomized controlled trials reported a significant favorable effect Among clinical studies, a significant favorable summary effect was observed for duration of cough (Odds ratio (OR), 0 19, p = 00003), duration of fever (0 11, p = 039), clinical cure (0 21, p = 0495), death (0 32, p = 4 1x10-6) and viral shedding (0 43, p = 031) A trend for a favorable effect was noted for the outcome “death and/or ICU transfer” (0 29, p = 069) with a point estimate remarkably similar to that observed for death (∼0 3) In conclusion, a meta-analysis of publicly available clinical reports demonstrates that chloroquine derivatives are effective to improve clinical and virological outcomes but, more importantly, it reduces mortality by a factor 3 in patients infected with COVID-19 Big data are lacking basic treatment definitions and are linked to conflict of interest

Title: Severe acute respiratory syndrome. Content: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a new disease that poses a threat to international health. The SARS epidemic earlier this year affected more than 30 countries and regions, with a cumulative global total of 8098 cases. It is caused by a novel coronavirus, probably of animal origin. The mean incubation period is 6.4 days (range 2-11 days). Patients usually present with high fever, chills, myalgia and dry cough, with or without chest X-ray evidence of pneumonia at the onset of disease. A history of contact with or travel to an area with local transmission is common. Diagnosis is based on clinical criteria, as a valid rapid diagnostic test is not yet available. There is no specific antiviral therapy for this disease, and no controlled clinical trial for any treatment modality has been conducted. In several retrospective studies steroids have been shown to be useful in a proportion of patients who deteriorated despite antibiotics and supportive treatment. SARS has a high morbidity (about 25% required intensive care) and fatality (9.6%). A high index of suspicion for the disease, isolation of patients, strict observation of infection control practices and compliance with use of personal protective equipment are necessary to prevent nosocomial infection. Contact tracing and quarantine are essential measures to prevent community spread of disease. Prevention of future outbreaks requires strengthening of infection control practices in hospitals, development of a rapid diagnostic test and a vaccine, and removal of any animal reservoir and environmental conditions that led to the spread of the disease.

Title: Updating insights into rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk through shared data: individual patient and summary level meta-analyses. Content: OBJECTIVES To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of rosiglitazone treatment on cardiovascular risk and mortality using multiple data sources and varying analytical approaches with three aims in mind: to clarify uncertainties about the cardiovascular risk of rosiglitazone; to determine whether different analytical approaches are likely to alter the conclusions of adverse event meta-analyses; and to inform efforts to promote clinical trial transparency and data sharing. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK's) ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com for individual patient level data (IPD) and GSK's Study Register platforms, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2019 for summary level data. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Randomized, controlled, phase II-IV clinical trials that compared rosiglitazone with any control for at least 24 weeks in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS For analyses of trials for which IPD were available, a composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular related death, and non-cardiovascular related death was examined. These four events were examined independently as secondary analyses. For analyses including trials for which IPD were not available, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular related death were examined, which were determined from summary level data. Multiple meta-analyses were conducted that accounted for trials with zero events in one or both arms with two different continuity corrections (0.5 constant and treatment arm) to calculate odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS 33 eligible trials were identified from ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com for which IPD were available (21 156 patients). Additionally, 103 trials for which IPD were not available were included in the meta-analyses for myocardial infarction (23 683 patients), and 103 trials for which IPD were not available contributed to the meta-analyses for cardiovascular related death (22 772 patients). Among 29 trials for which IPD were available and that were included in previous meta-analyses using GSK's summary level data, more myocardial infarction events were identified by using IPD instead of summary level data for 26 trials, and fewer cardiovascular related deaths for five trials. When analyses were limited to trials for which IPD were available, and a constant continuity correction of 0.5 and a random effects model were used to account for trials with zero events in only one arm, patients treated with rosiglitazone had a 33% increased risk of a composite event compared with controls (odds ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.61; rosiglitazone population: 274 events among 11 837 patients; control population: 219 events among 9319 patients). The odds ratios for myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular related death, and non-cardiovascular related death were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.51), 1.54 (1.14 to 2.09), 1.15 (0.55 to 2.41), and 1.18 (0.60 to 2.30), respectively. For analyses including trials for which IPD were not available, odds ratios for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular related death were attenuated (1.09, 0.88 to 1.35, and 1.12, 0.72 to 1.74, respectively). Results were broadly consistent when analyses were repeated using trials with zero events across both arms and either of the two continuity corrections was used. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that rosiglitazone is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, especially for heart failure events. Although increased risk of myocardial infarction was observed across analyses, the strength of the evidence varied and effect estimates were attenuated when summary level data were used in addition to IPD. Because more myocardial infarctions and fewer cardiovascular related deaths were reported in the IPD than in the summary level data, sharing IPD might be necessary when performing meta-analyses focused on safety. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION OSF Home https://osf.io/4yvp2/.

Title: Available Evidence and Ongoing Clinical Trials of Remdesivir: Could It Be a Promising Therapeutic Option for COVID-19? Content: The novel coronavirus strain, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and is skyrocketing throughout the globe and become a global public health emergency. Despite promising preventive measures being taken, there is no vaccine or drug therapy officially approved to prevent or treat the infection. Everybody is waiting the findings of ongoing clinical trials in various chemical and biological products. This review is specifically aimed to summarize the available evidence and ongoing clinical trials of remdesivir as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an investigational drug having broad spectrum antiviral activity with its target RNA dependent RNA polymerase. It has not yet been officially approved for Ebola and Coronaviruses. Several studies showed that remdesivir had promising in vitro and in vivo antiviral activities against SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV strains. On the top of this, it exhibited a promising in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 strains though there are no published studies that substantiate its activity in vivo until the time of this review. There are few phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials on the way to investigate the safety and efficacy of remdesivir. Of which, one completed double blind, placebo controlled trial showed that remdesivir showed faster time to clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 patients compared to placebo though not found statistically significant. In addition, two phase 3 randomized open label clinical trials coordinated by Gilead Sciences are being conducted. In addition, WHO Solidarity trial and INSERM DisCoVeRy trials (randomized open labels) were launched recently.

Title: Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration. Content: BACKGROUND There is inconclusive evidence from observational studies to suggest that people who eat a diet rich in antioxidant vitamins (carotenoids, vitamins C, and E) or minerals (selenium and zinc) may be less likely to develop age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVES To determine whether or not taking antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplements, or both, prevent the development of AMD. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 29 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 29 March 2017), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) (1985 to 29 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 29 March 2017, the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 29 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 29 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 29 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplement (alone or in combination) to control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Both review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. One author entered data into RevMan 5; the other author checked the data entry. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of five RCTs in this review with data available for 76,756 people. The trials were conducted in Australia, Finland, and the USA, and investigated vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and multivitamin supplements. All trials were judged to be at low risk of bias.Four studies reported the comparison of vitamin E with placebo. Average treatment and follow-up duration ranged from 4 to 10 years. Data were available for a total of 55,614 participants. There was evidence that vitamin E supplements do not prevent the development of any AMD (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence), and may slightly increase the risk of late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 3.62, 95% CI 0.77 to 16.95; very low-certainty evidence), and four cases of geographic atrophy (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 26.0; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported similar numbers of adverse events in the vitamin E and placebo groups. Another trial reported excess of haemorrhagic strokes in the vitamin E group (39 versus 23 events, hazard ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91, low-certainty evidence).Two studies reported the comparison of beta-carotene with placebo. These studies took place in Finland and the USA. Both trials enrolled men only. Average treatment and follow-up duration was 6 years and 12 years. Data were available for a total of 22,083 participants. There was evidence that beta-carotene supplements did not prevent any AMD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence) nor have an important effect on late AMD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study (941 participants) reported data separately for neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy. There were 10 cases of neovascular AMD (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.15; very low-certainty evidence) and 4 cases of geographic atrophy (RR 0.31 95% CI 0.03 to 2.93; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-carotene was associated with increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked.One study reported the comparison of vitamin C with placebo, and multivitamin (Centrum Silver) versus placebo. This was a study in men in the USA with average treatment duration and follow-up of 8 years for vitamin C and 11 years for multivitamin. Data were available for a total of 14,236 participants. AMD was assessed by self-report followed by medical record review. There was evidence that vitamin C supplementation did not prevent any AMD (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence) or late AMD (RR 0.94, 0.61 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a slight increased risk of any AMD (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; moderate-certainty evidence) and late AMD (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.69; moderate-certainty evidence) in the multivitamin group. Neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy were not reported separately. Adverse effects were not reported but there was possible increased risk of skin rashes in the multivitamin group.Adverse effects were not consistently reported in these eye studies, but there is evidence from other large studies that beta-carotene increases the risk of lung cancer in people who smoke or who have been exposed to asbestos.None of the studies reported quality of life or resource use and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Taking vitamin E or beta-carotene supplements will not prevent or delay the onset of AMD. The same probably applies to vitamin C and the multivitamin (Centrum Silver) investigated in the one trial reported to date. There is no evidence with respect to other antioxidant supplements, such as lutein and zeaxanthin. Although generally regarded as safe, vitamin supplements may have harmful effects, and clear evidence of benefit is needed before they can be recommended. People with AMD should see the related Cochrane Review on antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of AMD, written by the same review team.

Title: Should Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ever Be Used for the Management of Hypertension? Content: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are commonly used anti-hypertensive medications in a number of clinical settings. They are often used interchangeably, but we pose the provocative question as to whether they should be. We review the literature to evaluate for any differences in efficacy between the two classes in order to determine if the greater side effects associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are offset by any advantageous effects on outcomes to warrant their use over angiotensin receptor blockers. RECENT FINDINGS: In many clinical scenarios, the data supports similar efficacy between ACE inhibitors and ARBs, while in a minority of others, there are murky signals from previous trials that suggest ACE inhibitors may be better. However, when reviewing the literature in its entirety, and taking into account recently published pooled analysis and head to head trials, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have similar efficacy. This is in contrast to data on adverse effects, which consistently favors the use of ARBs. SUMMARY: From the available data, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have equal efficacy yet unequal adverse effects. It is in this context that we take the provocative stance that ACE inhibitors should not be used to treat hypertension.

Title: A Machine Learning alternative to placebo-controlled clinical trials upon new diseases: A primer Content: The appearance of a new dangerous and contagious disease requires the development of a drug therapy faster than what is foreseen by usual mechanisms. Many drug therapy developments consist in investigating through different clinical trials the effects of different specific drug combinations by delivering it into a test group of ill patients, meanwhile a placebo treatment is delivered to the remaining ill patients, known as the control group. We compare the above technique to a new technique in which all patients receive a different and reasonable combination of drugs and use this outcome to feed a Neural Network. By averaging out fluctuations and recognizing different patient features, the Neural Network learns the pattern that connects the patients initial state to the outcome of the treatments and therefore can predict the best drug therapy better than the above method. In contrast to many available works, we do not study any detail of drugs composition nor interaction, but instead pose and solve the problem from a phenomenological point of view, which allows us to compare both methods. Although the conclusion is reached through mathematical modeling and is stable upon any reasonable model, this is a proof-of-concept that should be studied within other expertises before confronting a real scenario. All calculations, tools and scripts have been made open source for the community to test, modify or expand it. Finally it should be mentioned that, although the results presented here are in the context of a new disease in medical sciences, these are useful for any field that requires a experimental technique with a control group.

Title: Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding. Content: BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in patients who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce further the risk of TTIs from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, a process by which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven significantly to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in patients requiring platelet transfusions. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 18 February 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 18 February 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 18 February 2013) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to 18 February 2013). We also searched several international and ongoing trial databases and citation-tracked relevant reference lists. We requested information on possible unpublished trials from known investigators in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. We did not identify any RCTs which compared the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS One author screened all references, excluding duplicates and those clearly irrelevant. Two authors then screened the remaining references, confirmed eligibility, extracted data and analysed trial quality independently. We requested and obtained a significant amount of missing data from trial authors. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the fixed-effect model for risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and used the I² statistic to explore heterogeneity, employing the random-effects model when I² was greater than 30%. MAIN RESULTS We included 10 trials comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. Nine trials assessed Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets and one trial Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets. Two were randomised cross-over trials and the remaining eight were parallel-group RCTs. In total, 1422 participants were available for analysis across the 10 trials, of which 675 participants received Intercept® and 56 Mirasol® platelet transfusions. Four trials assessed the response to a single study platelet transfusion (all Intercept®) and six to multiple study transfusions (Intercept® (N = 5), Mirasol® (N = 1)) compared with standard platelets.We found the trials to be generally at low risk of bias but heterogeneous regarding the nature of the interventions (platelet preparation), protocols for platelet transfusion, definitions of outcomes, methods of outcome assessment and duration of follow-up.Our primary outcomes were mortality, 'any bleeding', 'clinically significant bleeding' and 'severe bleeding', and were grouped by duration of follow-up: short (up to 48 hours), medium (48 hours to seven days) or long (more than seven days). Meta-analysis of data from five trials of multiple platelet transfusions reporting 'any bleeding' over a long follow-up period found an increase in bleeding in those receiving pathogen-reduced platelets compared with standard platelets using the fixed-effect model (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, I² = 59%); however, this meta-analysis showed no difference between treatment arms when using the random-effects model (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38).There was no evidence of a difference between treatment arms in the number of patients with 'clinically significant bleeding' (reported by four out of the same five trials) or 'severe bleeding' (reported by all five trials) (respectively, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, I² = 2%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.12, I² = 51%). We also found no evidence of a difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality, acute transfusion reactions, adverse events, serious adverse events and red cell transfusion requirements in the trials which reported on these outcomes. No bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Although the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials, the relative risk of this event was 2.74 higher following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.07, I² = 0%). Participants required 7% more platelet transfusions following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11, I² = 21%), although the interval between platelet transfusions was only shown to be significantly shorter following multiple Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.37, I² = 0%). In trials of multiple pathogen-reduced platelets, our analyses showed the one- and 24-hour count and corrected count increments to be significantly inferior to standard platelets. However, one-hour increments were similar in trials of single platelet transfusions, although the 24-hour count and corrected count increments were again significantly lower. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence of a difference in mortality, 'clinically significant' or 'severe bleeding', transfusion reactions or adverse events between pathogen-reduced and standard platelets. For a range of laboratory outcomes the results indicated evidence of some benefits for standard platelets over pathogen-reduced platelets. These conclusions are based on data from 1422 patients included in 10 trials. Results from ongoing or new trials are required to determine if there are clinically important differences in bleeding risk between pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions and standard platelet transfusions. Given the variability in trial design, bleeding assessment and quality of outcome reporting, it is recommended that future trials apply standardised approaches to outcome assessment and follow-up, including safety reporting.

Title: Current treatment for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants. Content: This paper provides an update and critical review of available data on the treatment of acute viral bronchiolitis in previously healthy infants, with special focus on new or promising therapies. The main potential benefits of medical assistance in these patients reside in the careful monitoring of their clinical status, the maintenance of adequate hydration and oxygenation, the preservation of the airway opened and cleared of secretions and the option to perform parental education. There is no convincing evidence that any other form of therapy will reliably provide beneficial effects in infants with bronchiolitis and currently, any treatment beyond supportive care should be prescribed on a case-by-case basis with watchful appraisal of its effects. Therapies such as ribavirin, IFN, vitamin A, antibiotics, mist therapy or anticholinergics, have not demonstrated any measurable clinical effect. Several studies and meta-analyses with beta(2)-agonists and corticosteroids have failed to show any benefit of significant extent, however, physicians keep favouring their use. Presently, adrenaline has received rather consistent support from clinical trials but it is not yet widely prescribed. There are other therapeutic strategies, for instance, heliox, hypertonic saline, noninvasive ventilation, physical therapy techniques, thickened feeds or palivizumab that have shown promising potential benefits, but evidence supporting its use is still limited and further studies should be warranted. In the meantime, infants with acute viral bronchiolitis should be treated following evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, keeping the patient central in the process and being sensitive to social, cultural and familiar influences on their treatment strategy.

Title: A living systematic review protocol for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations Content: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website ( COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.

Title: Defining the interval for monitoring potential adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) after receipt of live viral vectored vaccines Content: Abstract Live viral vectors that express heterologous antigens of the target pathogen are being investigated in the development of novel vaccines against serious infectious agents like HIV and Ebola. As some live recombinant vectored vaccines may be replication-competent, a key challenge is defining the length of time for monitoring potential adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in clinical trials and epidemiologic studies. This time period must be chosen with care and based on considerations of pre-clinical and clinical trials data, biological plausibility and practical feasibility. The available options include: (1) adapting from the current relevant regulatory guidelines; (2) convening a panel of experts to review the evidence from a systematic literature search to narrow down a list of likely potential or known AEFI and establish the optimal risk window(s); and (3) conducting “near real-time“ prospective monitoring for unknown clustering’s of AEFI in validated large linked vaccine safety databases using Rapid Cycle Analysis for pre-specified adverse events of special interest (AESI) and Treescan to identify previously unsuspected outcomes. The risk window established by any of these options could be used along with (4) establishing a registry of clinically validated pre-specified AESI to include in case-control studies. Depending on the infrastructure, human resources and databases available in different countries, the appropriate option or combination of options can be determined by regulatory agencies and investigators.

Title: Treatment and preliminary outcomes of 150 acute care patients with COVID-19 in a rural health system in the Dakotas Content: The majority of available US-published reports present populations with community spread in urban areas. The objective of this report is to describe a rural healthcare system's utilisation of therapeutic options available to treat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent patient outcomes. A total of 150 patients were treated for COVID-19 at three hospitals in the Dakotas from 21 March 2020 to 30 April 2020. The most common pharmacological treatment regimens administered were zinc, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and convalescent plasma. Adjunctive treatments included therapeutic anticoagulation, tocilizumab and corticosteroids. As of 1 June 2020, 127 patients have survived to hospital discharge, 12 patients remain hospitalised and 11 patients have expired. The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin use has yet to be determined but was not without risks of corrected QT interval prolongation and arrhythmias in our cohort. We did not appreciate any adverse effects that appeared related to tocilizumab or convalescent plasma administration in those patient subsets. These findings may provide insight into disease severity and treatment options in the rural setting with limited resources to participate in clinical trials and encourage larger comparative studies evaluating treatment efficacy.

Title: Nutritional Recovery after Open and Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Comparative Trial (CCOG1204). Content: BACKGROUND Little information from prospective clinical trials is available on the influences of surgical approaches on postoperative body compositions and nutritional status. We designed a prospective non-randomized trial to compare postoperative chronological changes in body composition and nutritional status between laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomy for stage I gastric cancer (GC). METHODS Body compositions and nutritional indicators in blood tests were measured at the baseline and at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th postoperative months (POM). The primary end point was the decrease relative to the baseline in the body muscle mass at POM 6. RESULTS Ninety-six patients for the laparoscopic group and 52 for the open group were eligible for data analysis. No significant differences were found in any baseline demographics, body compositions, and nutritional indicators between the groups. The changes of body muscle mass at POM 6 were similar in both groups. Overall, no significant differences between the groups were observed in any of the body composition and nutritional indicators during the first year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS Postoperative body compositions and nutritional status were not affected by surgical approaches during the first 12 months after surgery in patients who underwent distal gastrectomy for stage I GC.

Title: How to Build the Plane While Flying: VTE/PE Thromboprophylaxis Clinical Guidelines for COVID-19 Patients Content: Over the years, the practice of medicine has evolved from authority-based to experience-based to evidence-based with the introduction of the scientific process, clinical trials, and outcomes-based data analysis (Tebala GD. Int J Med Sci. 2018;15(12):1397-1405). The time required to perform the necessary randomized controlled trials, a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis of these trials to then create, accept, promulgate, and educate the practicing clinicians to use the evidence-based clinical guidelines is typically measured in years. When the severe acute respiratory syndrome novel coronavirus-2 (SARS-nCoV-2) pandemic commenced in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019, there were few available clinical guidelines to deploy, let alone adapt and adopt to treat the surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study is to first explain how clinical guidelines, on which bedside clinicians have grown accustomed, can be created in the midst of a pandemic, with an evolving scientific understanding of the pathophysiology of the hypercoagulable state. The second is to adapt and adopt current venous thromboembolism diagnostic and treatment guidelines, while relying on the limited available observational reporting of COVID-19 patients to create a comprehensive clinical guideline to treat COVID-19 patients.

Title: A large number of COVID-19 interventional clinical trials were registered soon after the pandemic onset: a descriptive analysis Content: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a pressing need for evidence-based interventions to address the devastating clinical and public health effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The number of registered trials related to COVID-19 is increasing by the day. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of the currently registered interventional clinical trials related to COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on May 15th, 2020. We included any entry that is related to COVID-19. We abstracted and then descriptively analyzed the following characteristics of the registered trials: study design, status, phase, primary endpoints, experimental interventions, and geographic location among other qualifiers. RESULTS: We identified 1,308 eligible registered trials. Most trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 703; 53.7%) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (n = 291; 22.2%). The number of participants to be enrolled across these trials was 734,657, with a median of 110 participants per trial. The most commonly studied intervention category was pharmacologic (n = 763; 58.3%), with antiparasitic medications being the most common subcategory. Although over half of the trials were already recruiting, we identified published peer-reviewed results for only 8 of those trials. CONCLUSION: There is a relatively large number of registered trials but with very few results published so far. Although our findings suggest an appropriate initial response by the research community, the real challenge will be to get these trials completed, published, and translated into practice and policy.

Title: A large number of COVID-19 interventional clinical trials were registered soon after the pandemic onset: a descriptive analysis Content: Abstract Background There is a pressing need for evidence-based interventions to address the devastating clinical and public health effects of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The number of registered trials related to COVID-19 is increasing by the day. Objectives To describe the characteristics of the currently registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. Methods We searched the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on May 15, 2020. We included any entry that is related to COVID-19. We abstracted then descriptively analyzed the following characteristics of the registered trials: study design, status, phase, primary endpoints, experimental interventions, and geographic location among other qualifiers. Results We identified 1,308 eligible registered trials. The majority of trials were initially registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (n= 703; 53.7%) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) (n= 291; 22.2%). The number of participants to be enrolled across these trials was 734,657, with a median of 110 participants per trial. The most-commonly studied intervention category was pharmacologic (n=763; 58.3%), with antiparasitic medications being the most common subcategory. While over half of trials were already recruiting, we identified published peer-reviewed results for only 8 of those trials. Conclusion There is a relatively large number of registered trials but very few results published so far. While our findings suggest an appropriate initial response by the research community, the real challenge will be to get these trials completed, published, and translated into practice and policy.

Title: Targeting the NO‐cGMP‐PDE5 pathway in COVID‐19 infection Content: A pandemic outbreak of COVID‐19 has been sweeping the world since December. It begins as a respiratory infection that, mainly in men with diabetes or renal impairment, evolves into a systemic disease, with SARDS, progressive endothelial cell damage, abnormal clotting and impaired cardiovascular and liver function. Some clinical trials are testing biological drugs to limit the immune system dysregulation, “cytokines storm”, that causes the systemic complications of COVID‐19. The contraindications of these drugs and their cost raise concerns over the implications of their widespread availability. Numerous clinical and experimental studies have revealed a role for the nitric oxide (NO)‐cyclic GMP‐phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) pathway in modulating low‐grade inflammation in patients with metabolic diseases, offering cardiovascular protection. PDE5 inhibition favors an anti‐inflammatory response by modulating activated T cells, reducing cytokine release, lowering fibrosis, increasing oxygen diffusion, stimulating vascular repair. PDE5 is highly expressed in the lungs, where its inhibition improves pulmonary fibrosis, a complication of severe COVID‐19 disease. We performed a systematic review of all evidence documenting any involvement of the NO‐cGMP‐PDE5 axis in the pathophysiology of COVID‐19, presenting the ongoing clinical trials aimed at modulating this axis, including our own “silDEnafil administration in DiAbetic and dysmetaboLic patients with COVID‐19 (DEDALO trial)”. The reviewed evidence suggests that PDE5 inhibitors could offer a new strategy in managing COVID‐19 by (i) counteracting the Ang‐II‐mediated downregulation of AT‐1 receptor; (ii) acting on monocyte switching, thus reducing pro‐inflammatory cytokines, interstitial infiltration and the vessel damage responsible for alveolar hemorrhage‐necrosis; (iii) inhibiting the transition of endothelial and smooth muscle cells to mesenchymal cells in the pulmonary artery, preventing clotting and thrombotic complications. If the ongoing trials presented herein should provide positive findings, the low cost, wide availability and temperature stability of PDE5 inhibitors could make them a major resource to combat COVID‐19 in developing countries.

Title: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Content: OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Title: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Content: OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 – 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 – 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Title: Remdesivir in treatment of COVID-19: A systematic benefit-risk assessment Content: Background: There is a need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) rapidly, given the current, ongoing pandemic. A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to strengthen the ongoing understanding of the benefit-risk balance for remdesivir in COVID-19 treatment by using a structured method which uses all available data. Methods: The Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used to assess the overall benefit-risk of the use of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. We searched PubMed,Google Scholar and government agency websites to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking remdesivir for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance. Results: Several key benefits and risks for use of remdesivir in COVID-19 compared to placebo have been identified. In one trial, the benefit of time to clinical improvement was not statistically significant (21 vs 23 days, HR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.75), although the study was underpowered. In another trial, a shorter time to recovery in patients treated with remdesivir was observed (11 vs 15 days), with non-significant reduced mortality risk (8% vs 12%). Risk data were only available from one trial. This trial reported fewer serious adverse events in patients taking remdesivir (18%) comparted to the placebo group (26%), however more patients in the remdesivir group discontinued treatment as a result of an adverse event compared to those patients receiving placebo (12% vs 5%). Conclusions: Preliminary clinical trial results suggest a favourable benefit-risk profile for remdesivir compared to placebo, however there is limited safety data available at the current time. The current framework summarises the key anticipated benefits and risks for which further data are needed. Ongoing clinical trial data can be incorporated into the framework when available to provide an updated benefit-risk assessment.

Title: Therapeutic strategies in an outbreak scenario to treat the novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China [version 1;peer review: awaiting peer review] Content: A novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating in Wuhan, China presents a potential respiratory viral pandemic to the world population Current efforts are focused on containment and quarantine of infected individuals Ultimately, the outbreak could be controlled with a protective vaccine to prevent 2019-nCoV infection While vaccine research should be pursued intensely, there exists today no therapy to treat 2019-nCoV upon infection, despite an urgent need to find options to help these patients and preclude potential death Herein, I review the potential options to treat 2019-nCoV in patients, with an emphasis on the necessity for speed and timeliness in developing new and effective therapies in this outbreak I consider the options of drug repurposing, developing neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy, and an oligonucleotide strategy targeting the viral RNA genome, emphasizing the promise and pitfalls of these approaches Finally, I advocate for the fastest strategy to develop a treatment now, which could be resistant to any mutations the virus may have in the future The proposal is a biologic that blocks 2019-nCoV entry using a soluble version of the viral receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), fused to an immunoglobulin Fc domain, providing a neutralizing antibody with maximal breath to avoid any viral escape, while also helping to recruit the immune system to build lasting immunity The sequence of the ACE2-Fc protein is provided to investigators, allowing its possible use in recombinant protein expression systems to start producing drug today to treat patients under compassionate use, while formal clinical trials are later undertaken Such a treatment could help infected patients before a protective vaccine is developed and widely available in the coming months to year(s)

Title: Therapeutic strategies in an outbreak scenario to treat the novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China Content: A novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating in Wuhan, China presents a potential respiratory viral pandemic to the world population. Current efforts are focused on containment and quarantine of infected individuals. Ultimately, the outbreak could be controlled with a protective vaccine to prevent 2019-nCoV infection. While vaccine research should be pursued intensely, there exists today no therapy to treat 2019-nCoV upon infection, despite an urgent need to find options to help these patients and preclude potential death. Herein, I review the potential options to treat 2019-nCoV in patients, with an emphasis on the necessity for speed and timeliness in developing new and effective therapies in this outbreak. I consider the options of drug repurposing, developing neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy, and an oligonucleotide strategy targeting the viral RNA genome, emphasizing the promise and pitfalls of these approaches. Finally, I advocate for the fastest strategy to develop a treatment now, which could be resistant to any mutations the virus may have in the future. The proposal is a biologic that blocks 2019-nCoV entry using a soluble version of the viral receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), fused to an immunoglobulin Fc domain, providing a neutralizing antibody with maximal breath to avoid any viral escape, while also helping to recruit the immune system to build lasting immunity. The sequence of the ACE2-Fc protein is provided to investigators, allowing its possible use in recombinant protein expression systems to start producing drug today to treat patients under compassionate use, while formal clinical trials are later undertaken. Such a treatment could help infected patients before a protective vaccine is developed and widely available in the coming months to year(s).

Title: Prompt closure versus gradual weaning of extraventricular drainage for hydrocephalus in adult patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review protocol with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Content: INTRODUCTION In Neuro Intensive Care Units (NICU) and neurosurgical units, patients with an external ventricular drain (EVD) due to hydrocephalus following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) are commonly seen. Cessation of the EVD involves the dilemma of either closing the EVD directly, or gradually weaning it before removal. Development of increased intracranial pressure (ICP) and acute hydrocephalus with subsequent need of a permanent shunt has been associated with prompt closure of theEVD, whereas increased risk of infection with possible spreading to the brain and subsequent patient fatality is suspected in connection to a longer treatment as seen in gradual weaning. Sparse data exist on the recommendation of cessation strategy and patients are currently being treated on the basis of personal experience and expert opinion. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the available evidence from clinical trials on the effects of prompt closure versus gradual weaning of EVD treatment for hydrocephalus in adult patients with SAH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will search for randomised clinical trials in major international databases. Two authors will independently screen and select references for inclusion, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included randomised clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will analyse the extracted data using Review Manager and trial sequential analysis. To assess the quality of the evidence, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table containing our primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Results will be published widely according to the interest of the society. No possible impact, harm or ethical concerns are expected doing this protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO CRD42018108801.

Title: The Battle against COVID 19 Pandemic: What we Need to Know Before we "Test Fire" Ivermectin. Content: The world is faced with the dire challenge of finding an effective treatment against the rampaging COVID 19 pandemic. Amidst the crisis, reports of in vitro inhibitory activity of ivermectin, an approved anthelmintic, against the causative SARSCoV2 virus, have generated lot of optimism. In this article, we have fished and compiled the needed information on the drug, that will help readers and prospective investigators in having a quick overview. Though the primordial biological action of the drug is allosteric modulation of helminthic ion channel receptor, its in vitro activity against both RNA and DNA viruses is known for almost a decade. In the past two years, efficacy study in animal models of pseudorabies and zika virus was found to be favourable and unfavourable respectively. Only one clinical study evaluated the drug in dengue virus infection without any clinical efficacy. However, the proposed mechanism of drug action, by inhibiting the importin family of nucleus-cytoplasmic transporters along with favourable pharmacokinetics, warrants exploration of its role in COVID 19 through safely conducted clinical trials. Being an available and affordable drug, enlisted in WHO List of Essential Medicine, and a long track record of clinical safety, the drug is already in clinical trials the world over. As the pandemic continues to ravage human civilisation with unabated intensity, the world eagerly waits for a ray of hope emanating from the outcome of the ongoing trials with ivermectin as well as other drugs.

Title: The Battle against COVID 19 Pandemic: What we Need to Know Before we "Test Fire" Ivermectin Content: The world is faced with the dire challenge of finding an effective treatment against the rampaging COVID 19 pandemic. Amidst the crisis, reports of in vitro inhibitory activity of ivermectin, an approved anthelmintic, against the causative SARSCoV2 virus, have generated lot of optimism. In this article, we have fished and compiled the needed information on the drug, that will help readers and prospective investigators in having a quick overview. Though the primordial biological action of the drug is allosteric modulation of helminthic ion channel receptor, its in vitro activity against both RNA and DNA viruses is known for almost a decade. In the past two years, efficacy study in animal models of pseudorabies and zika virus was found to be favourable and unfavourable respectively. Only one clinical study evaluated the drug in dengue virus infection without any clinical efficacy. However, the proposed mechanism of drug action, by inhibiting the importin family of nucleus-cytoplasmic transporters along with favourable pharmacokinetics, warrants exploration of its role in COVID 19 through safely conducted clinical trials. Being an available and affordable drug, enlisted in WHO List of Essential Medicine, and a long track record of clinical safety, the drug is already in clinical trials the world over. As the pandemic continues to ravage human civilisation with unabated intensity, the world eagerly waits for a ray of hope emanating from the outcome of the ongoing trials with ivermectin as well as other drugs.

Title: Targeting the NO-cGMP-PDE5 pathway in COVID-19 infection. The DEDALO project Content: BACKGROUND: A pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 has been sweeping the world since December. It begins as a respiratory infection that, mainly in men with diabetes or renal impairment, evolves into a systemic disease, with SARDS, progressive endothelial cell damage, abnormal clotting and impaired cardiovascular and liver function. Some clinical trials are testing biological drugs to limit the immune system dysregulation, "cytokines storm," that causes the systemic complications of COVID-19. The contraindications of these drugs and their cost raise concerns over the implications of their widespread availability. OBJECTIVES: Numerous clinical and experimental studies have revealed a role for the nitric oxide (NO)-cyclic GMP-phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) pathway in modulating low-grade inflammation in patients with metabolic diseases, offering cardiovascular protection. PDE5 inhibition favors an anti-inflammatory response by modulating activated T cells, reducing cytokine release, lowering fibrosis, increasing oxygen diffusion, stimulating vascular repair. PDE5 is highly expressed in the lungs, where its inhibition improves pulmonary fibrosis, a complication of severe COVID-19 disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all evidence documenting any involvement of the NO-cGMP-PDE5 axis in the pathophysiology of COVID-19, presenting the ongoing clinical trials aimed at modulating this axis, including our own "silDEnafil administration in DiAbetic and dysmetaboLic patients with COVID-19 (DEDALO trial)." RESULTS: The reviewed evidence suggests that PDE5 inhibitors could offer a new strategy in managing COVID-19 by (i) counteracting the Ang-II-mediated downregulation of AT-1 receptor; (ii) acting on monocyte switching, thus reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines, interstitial infiltration and the vessel damage responsible for alveolar hemorrhage-necrosis; (iii) inhibiting the transition of endothelial and smooth muscle cells to mesenchymal cells in the pulmonary artery, preventing clotting and thrombotic complications. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: If the ongoing trials presented herein should provide positive findings, the low cost, wide availability and temperature stability of PDE5 inhibitors could make them a major resource to combat COVID-19 in developing countries.

Title: Equitably Sharing the Benefits and Burdens of Research: Covid‐19 Raises the Stakes Content: One of the central principles of research ethics is that the benefits and burdens of research with human participants should be equitably distributed. This principle has important implications for where research will be conducted, how participants will be recruited, what questions will be investigated, and who will control the distribution of any innovations that result. In the context of Covid‐19, key issues include providing support to clinical trials in low‐ and middle‐income countries, without taking needed resources away from other critical clinical and public health needs; designing recruitment strategies likely to generate sufficient enrollment from groups that have been disproportionately burdened by the virus, such as African Americans; supporting studies designed to improve outcomes in high‐risk environments, such as nursing homes and group homes for the developmentally disabled; and ensuring that the medical products resulting from research are made available throughout the world at an affordable price. If clinical trials are not designed with equity considerations consciously in mind, the response to the pandemic may further exacerbate disparities in health status between population groups.

Title: Equitably Sharing the Benefits and Burdens of Research: Covid-19 Raises the Stakes Content: One of the central principles of research ethics is that the benefits and burdens of research with human participants should be equitably distributed. This principle has important implications for where research will be conducted, how participants will be recruited, what questions will be investigated, and who will control the distribution of any innovations that result. In the context of Covid-19, key issues include providing support to clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries, without taking needed resources away from other critical clinical and public health needs; designing recruitment strategies likely to generate sufficient enrollment from groups that have been disproportionately burdened by the virus, such as African Americans; supporting studies designed to improve outcomes in high-risk environments, such as nursing homes and group homes for the developmentally disabled; and ensuring that the medical products resulting from research are made available throughout the world at an affordable price. If clinical trials are not designed with equity considerations consciously in mind, the response to the pandemic may further exacerbate disparities in health status between population groups.

Title: Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children. Content: BACKGROUND Planning for outbreaks of influenza is a high priority public health issue for national governments. Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are thought to help reduce the symptoms of influenza with several possible mechanisms proposed. NIs have been stockpiled with a view to their widespread use in the event of a pandemic. However, the evidence base for this class of agents remains a source of debate. In a previous review we have documented substantial risks of publication bias of trials of NIs for influenza (60% of patient data from phase III treatment trials of oseltamivir have never been published) and reporting bias in the published trials. Our confidence in the conclusions of previous versions of this review has been subsequently undermined. Since we have become aware of a large number of unpublished trials of NIs in the management of influenza, this review updates and merges existing reviews in this area. OBJECTIVES To review clinical study reports of placebo-controlled randomised trials, regulatory comments and reviews ('regulatory information') of the effects of the NIs oseltamivir and zanamivir for influenza in all age groups and appraise trial programmes, rather than single studies.Clinical study reports are very detailed, unpublished clinical trial data containing in-depth descriptions of protocol rationale, methods analysis plans, trial results and organisational documents (such as contracts). A series of clinical studies designed and conducted by one sponsor represents a trial programme of a drug indication (for example treatment of influenza). SEARCH METHODS We searched trial registries, cross-referencing published and unpublished sources and corresponded with manufacturers and regulators. We searched the archives of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European and Japanese regulators. The evidence in this review reflects searches to obtain relevant information up to 12 April 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included regulatory information based on assessments of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in people of any age who had either confirmed or suspected influenza, or who had been exposed to influenza in the local community or place of residence. We included information which had been made available by our deadline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We indexed regulatory information in two purpose-built instruments and reconstructed trials using CONSORT statement-based templates. To progress to Stage 2 (full analysis) we sought manufacturer explanations of discrepancies in the data. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) offered us individual patient data and responded to our queries, but Roche did not provide us with complete clinical study reports. In Stage 2 we intended to analyse trials with validated data (i.e. assuming our validation questions aimed at clarifying omissions and discrepancies were resolved). No studies progressed to Stage 2. We carried out analyses of the effects of oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms and hospitalisations using the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and tested five hypotheses generated post-protocol publication. MAIN RESULTS We included and analysed data from 25 studies (15 oseltamivir and 10 zanamivir studies). We could not use data from a further 42 studies due to insufficient information or unresolved discrepancies in their data. The included trials were predominantly conducted in adults during influenza seasons in both hemispheres. A small number of studies were conducted in older people residing in care homes and in people with underlying respiratory diseases. The studies had adequate randomisation and blinding procedures, but imbalances in the analysis populations available (ITT influenza-infected) left many of the studies at risk of attrition bias. All the studies were sponsored by manufacturers of NIs. Time to first alleviation of symptoms in people with influenza-like illness symptoms (i.e. ITT population) was a median of 160 hours (range 125 to 192 hours) in the placebo groups and oseltamivir shortened this by around 21 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) -29.5 to -12.9 hours, P < 0.001; five studies) but there was no evidence of effect on hospitalisations based on seven studies with a median placebo group event rate of 0.84% (range 0% to 11%): odds ratio (OR) 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, P = 0.86). These results are based on the comprehensive ITT population data and are unlikely to be biased. A post-protocol analysis showed that participants randomised to oseltamivir in treatment trials had a reduced odds being diagnosed with influenza (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, P = 0.003; eight studies), probably due to an altered antibody response. Zanamivir trials showed no evidence of this. Due to limitations in the design, conduct and reporting of the trial programme, the data available to us lacked sufficient detail to credibly assess a possible effect of oseltamivir on complications and viral transmission. We postponed analysis of zanamivir evidence because of the offer of individual patient data (IPD) from its manufacturer. The authors have been unable to obtain the full set of clinical study reports or obtain verification of data from the manufacturer of oseltamivir (Roche) despite five requests between June 2010 and February 2011. No substantial comments were made by Roche on the protocol of our Cochrane Review which has been publicly available since December 2010. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found a high risk of publication and reporting biases in the trial programme of oseltamivir. Sub-population analyses of the influenza infected population in the oseltamivir trial programme are not possible because the two arms are non-comparable due to oseltamivir's apparent interference with antibody production. The evidence supports a direct oseltamivir mechanism of action on symptoms but we are unable to draw conclusions about its effect on complications or transmission. We expect full clinical study reports containing study protocol, reporting analysis plan, statistical analysis plan and individual patient data to clarify outstanding issues. These full clinical study reports are at present unavailable to us.

Title: Vaccines and Drug Therapeutics to Lock Down Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Content: The ongoing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been responsible for millions of infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths. To date, there is no approved targeted treatment, and many investigational therapeutic agents and vaccine candidates are being considered for the treatment of COVID-19. To extract and summarize information on potential vaccines and therapeutic agents against COVID-19 at different stages of clinical trials from January to March 2020, we reviewed major clinical trial databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and other primary registries between January and March 15, 2020. Interventional studies at different phases under the COVID-19 pipeline were included. A total of 249 clinical trials were identified between January to March 15, 2020. After filtering observational studies (194 studies), a total of 56 interventional trials were considered. The majority of clinical trials have been conducted on chloroquine (n=10) and traditional Chinese medications (TCMs; n=10), followed by antivirals (n=8), anti-inflammatory/immunosuppressants (n=9), cellular therapies (n=4), combinations of different antivirals therapies (n=3), antibacterial (n=1), and other therapies (n=5). Five vaccines are under phase I, and there are a couple of phase III trials on the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine under investigation among healthcare workers. Many novel compounds and vaccines against COVID-19 are currently under investigation. Some candidates have been tested for other viral infections and are listed for clinical trials against the COVID-19 pipeline. Currently, there are no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations available for the treatment of COVID-19.

Title: Pre-operative biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice. Content: BACKGROUND Patients with obstructive jaundice have various pathophysiological changes that affect the liver, kidney, heart, and the immune system. There is considerable controversy as to whether temporary relief of biliary obstruction prior to major definitive surgery (pre-operative biliary drainage) is of any benefit to the patient. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of pre-operative biliary drainage versus no pre-operative biliary drainage (direct surgery) in patients with obstructive jaundice (irrespective of a benign or malignant cause). SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised clinical trials comparing biliary drainage followed by surgery versus direct surgery, performed for obstructive jaundice, irrespective of the sample size, language, and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on the available patient analyses. We assessed the risk of bias (systematic overestimation of benefit or systematic underestimation of harm) with components of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We assessed the risk of play of chance (random errors) with trial sequential analysis. MAIN RESULTS We included six trials with 520 patients comparing pre-operative biliary drainage (265 patients) versus no pre-operative biliary drainage (255 patients). Four trials used percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and two trials used endoscopic sphincterotomy and stenting as the method of pre-operative biliary drainage. The risk of bias was high in all trials. The proportion of patients with malignant obstruction varied between 60% and 100%. There was no significant difference in mortality (40/265, weighted proportion 14.9%) in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus the direct surgery group (34/255, 13.3%) (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.71; P = 0.60). The overall serious morbidity was higher in the pre-operative biliary drainage group (60 per 100 patients in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus 26 per 100 patients in the direct surgery group) (RaR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.16; P = 0.0002). The proportion of patients who developed serious morbidity was significantly higher in the pre-operative biliary drainage group (75/102, 73.5%) in the pre-operative biliary drainage group versus the direct surgery group (37/94, 37.4%) (P < 0.001). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay (2 trials, 271 patients; MD 4.87 days; 95% CI -1.28 to 11.02; P = 0.12) between the two groups. Trial sequential analysis showed that for mortality only a small proportion of the required information size had been obtained. There seemed to be no significant differences in the subgroup of trials assessing percutaneous compared to endoscopic drainage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute routine pre-operative biliary drainage for patients with obstructive jaundice. Pre-operative biliary drainage may increase the rate of serious adverse events. So, the safety of routine pre-operative biliary drainage has not been established. Pre-operative biliary drainage should not be used in patients undergoing surgery for obstructive jaundice outside randomised clinical trials.

Title: Early experience with convalescent plasma as immunotherapy for COVID-19 in China: Knowns and unknowns Content: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a vaccine or specific drug treatment options for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), attention has been shifted in China to the possible therapeutic use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation. We summarized clinical studies and other research data available as of May 5, 2020, on CCP therapy according to the Clinical Treatment Guideline of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in China, as well as clinical experience at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, as part of a comprehensive anti-epidemic strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As of May 5, 2020, when the epidemic was well-controlled in China, healthcare databases and sources of English literature relating to convalescent plasma were searched and reviewed. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. RESULTS: As of May 5, 2020, up to 2,000 samples of CCP had been collected across China and administered to 700 COVID-19 patients. From donors, 200-400 mL of plasma were collected at each donation, with antibody titers >1:160. We identified three clinical studies for COVID-19 in China. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with untreated cases (P<0.001). No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: From initial studies, convalescent plasma therapy appears effective and safe for COVID-19. However, there is clearly a need for well-designed RCTs (randomized controlled trials) or other formal studies to further evaluate the efficacy and any potential adverse effects of CCP.

Title: Early experience with convalescent plasma as immunotherapy for COVID‐19 in China: Knowns and unknowns Content: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a vaccine or specific drug treatment options for coronavirus disease (COVID‐19), attention has been shifted in China to the possible therapeutic use of convalescent plasma. COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation. We summarized clinical studies and other research data available as of May 5, 2020, on CCP therapy according to the Clinical Treatment Guideline of COVID‐19 Convalescent Plasma in China, as well as clinical experience at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, as part of a comprehensive anti‐epidemic strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As of May 5, 2020, when the epidemic was well‐controlled in China, healthcare databases and sources of English literature relating to convalescent plasma were searched and reviewed. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. RESULTS: As of May 5, 2020, up to 2,000 samples of CCP had been collected across China and administered to 700 COVID‐19 patients. From donors, 200–400 mL of plasma were collected at each donation, with antibody titers >1:160. We identified three clinical studies for COVID‐19 in China. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with untreated cases (P<0.001). No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: From initial studies, convalescent plasma therapy appears effective and safe for COVID‐19. However, there is clearly a need for well‐designed RCTs (randomized controlled trials) or other formal studies to further evaluate the efficacy and any potential adverse effects of CCP.

Title: Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: What is our Current State of Knowledge? Content: Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine are drugs which have been widely used in malaria and rheumatoid arthritis respectively for over 50 years. There was anecdotal evidence of their efficacy in the earlier SARS outbreak in 2003. This prompted physicians from across the world to use them in the present SARS-CoV- 2 pandemic that is currently sweeping the globe, with 5 million people already infected to date. These drugs are already in widespread use for the treatment of COVID-19 in India, mainly because they are cheap and easily available, and because of the absence of any readily available alternative therapy. This timely review discusses the pre-clinical evidence, and data from the eight available clinical trials. We emphasise that careful monitoring for cardiac toxicity is required when these drugs are used. Finally, we conclude that current data does not allow us to recommend for or against the use of these drugs. Results of two large RCTs, one from the NIH and the other from WHO (Solidarity) are eagerly awaited before the role of these drugs in COVID-19 can be definitively established.

Title: IDentif.AI: Artificial Intelligence Pinpoints Remdesivir in Combination with Ritonavir and Lopinavir as an Optimal Regimen Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Content: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the rapid initiation of urgently needed clinical trials of repurposed drug combinations and monotherapies. These regimens were primarily relying on mechanism-of-action based selection of drugs, many of which have yielded positive in vitro but largely negative clinical outcomes. To overcome this challenge, we report the use of IDentif.AI, a platform that rapidly optimizes infectious disease (ID) combination therapy design using artificial intelligence (AI). In this study, IDentif.AI was implemented on a 12-drug candidate therapy search set representing over 530,000 possible drug combinations. IDentif.AI demonstrated that the optimal combination therapy against SARS-CoV-2 was comprised of remdesivir, ritonavir, and lopinavir, which mediated a 6.5-fold improvement in efficacy over remdesivir alone. Additionally, IDentif.AI showed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to be relatively ineffective. The identification of a clinically actionable optimal drug combination was completed within two weeks, with a 3-order of magnitude reduction in the number of tests typically needed. IDentif.AI analysis was also able to independently confirm clinical trial outcomes to date without requiring any data from these trials. The robustness of the IDentif.AI platform suggests that it may be applicable towards rapid development of optimal drug regimens to address current and future outbreaks.

Title: Ethical issues related to the hydroxychloroquine treatment prescription for Covid-19 Content: Abstract The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), has led to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To date, no drugs have demonstrated safety and efficacy in randomized controlled trials for patients with COVID-19. Although the association between Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin efficacy lack of solid evidence-base, several governments have adopted it for all virology confirmed Covid-19 cases even for those who are asymptomatic. In the following, we aim to discuss some of the ethical issues associated with the use of this treatment association. We mainly tried to discuss the following controversial questions: Is it ethical not to treat a patient while a treatment exists and is used for other indications than Covid-19 for which it’s not proven yet? If yes, is a randomized controlled trial to prove the hydroxychloroquine for the Covid-19 treatment, necessary, in the context of covid-19 pandemic? If No, is it the government’s right to decide the hydroxychloroquine treatment for all covid-19 patients? and what should be the physicians’ attitudes? Finally, what are the government, physicians, and patient’s rights and responsibilities? The paper conclude that, since health authorities in some countries recommended this off-label use treatment, physicians are challenged by the requirement of veracity while providing care to their patients and the implications of such a requirement; they are facing the challenge of balancing this guideline and their own conviction. Furthermore, the fundamental principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and respect for persons should underlie any reflection process to address this dilemma. In addition, in a pandemic context, the limits between the government’s, practitioner’s and patient’s rights and obligations are not clear which could significantly endanger the universal ethical principles in clinical practice. It could also undermine any attempt to develop serious clinical trials to prove the considered off-label drug.

Title: Immediate versus deferred delivery of the preterm baby with suspected fetal compromise for improving outcomes. Content: BACKGROUND Immediate delivery of the preterm fetus with suspected compromise may decrease the risk of damage due to intrauterine hypoxia. However, it may also increase the risks of prematurity. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of immediate versus deferred delivery of preterm babies with suspected fetal compromise on neonatal, maternal and long-term outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing a policy of immediate delivery with deferred delivery or expectant management in preterm fetuses with suspected in utero compromise. Quasi-randomised trials and trials employing a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion into the review. Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS We included one trial of 548 women (588 babies) in the review. There was no difference in the primary outcomes of extended perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 2.04) or the composite outcome of death or disability at or after two years (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75) with immediate delivery compared to deferred delivery. More babies in the immediate delivery group were ventilated for more than 24 hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.97). There were no differences between the immediate delivery and deferred delivery groups in any other individual neonatal morbidity or markers of neonatal morbidity (cord pH less than 7.00, Apgar less than seven at five minutes, convulsions, interventricular haemorrhage or germinal matrix haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis and periventricular leucomalacia or ventriculomegaly).More children in the immediate delivery group had cerebral palsy at or after two years of age (RR 5.88, 95% CI 1.33 to 26.02). There were, however, no differences in neurodevelopment impairment at or after two years (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.41) or death or disability in childhood (six to 13 years of age) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40). More women in the immediate delivery group had caesarean delivery than in the deferred delivery group (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24). Data were not available on any other maternal outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Currently there is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of immediate delivery compared with deferred delivery in cases of suspected fetal compromise at preterm gestations to make firm recommendations to guide clinical practice. Where there is uncertainty whether or not to deliver a preterm fetus with suspected fetal compromise, there seems to be no benefit to immediate delivery. Deferring delivery until test results worsen or increasing gestation favours delivery may improve the outcomes for mother and baby. More research is needed to guide clinical practice.

Title: Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for Treatment or Prophylaxis of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review. Content: BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have antiviral effects in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). PURPOSE To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment or prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DATA SOURCES PubMed (via MEDLINE), EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, bioRxiv, Preprints, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry from 1 December 2019 until 8 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION Studies in any language reporting efficacy or safety outcomes from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use in any setting in adults or children with suspected COVID-19 or at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA EXTRACTION Independent, dually performed data extraction and quality assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS Four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and 9 case series assessed treatment effects of the medications, but no studies evaluated prophylaxis. Evidence was conflicting and insufficient regarding the effect of hydroxychloroquine on such outcomes as all-cause mortality, progression to severe disease, clinical symptoms, and upper respiratory virologic clearance with antigen testing. Several studies found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine developed a QTc interval of 500 ms or greater, but the proportion of patients with this finding varied among the studies. Two studies assessed the efficacy of chloroquine; 1 trial, which compared higher-dose (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) with lower-dose (450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days) therapy, was stopped owing to concern that the higher dose therapy increased lethality and QTc interval prolongation. An observational study that compared adults with COVID-19 receiving chloroquine phosphate 500 mg once or twice daily with patients not receiving chloroquine found minor fever resolution and virologic clearance benefits with chloroquine. LIMITATION There were few controlled studies, and control for confounding was inadequate in observational studies. CONCLUSION Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Title: Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for Treatment or Prophylaxis of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review Content: BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have antiviral effects in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment or prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DATA SOURCES: PubMed (via MEDLINE), EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, bioRxiv, Preprints, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry from 1 December 2019 until 8 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in any language reporting efficacy or safety outcomes from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use in any setting in adults or children with suspected COVID-19 or at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent, dually performed data extraction and quality assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and 9 case series assessed treatment effects of the medications, but no studies evaluated prophylaxis. Evidence was conflicting and insufficient regarding the effect of hydroxychloroquine on such outcomes as all-cause mortality, progression to severe disease, clinical symptoms, and upper respiratory virologic clearance with antigen testing. Several studies found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine developed a QTc interval of 500 ms or greater, but the proportion of patients with this finding varied among the studies. Two studies assessed the efficacy of chloroquine; 1 trial, which compared higher-dose (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) with lower-dose (450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days) therapy, was stopped owing to concern that the higher dose therapy increased lethality and QTc interval prolongation. An observational study that compared adults with COVID-19 receiving chloroquine phosphate 500 mg once or twice daily with patients not receiving chloroquine found minor fever resolution and virologic clearance benefits with chloroquine. LIMITATION: There were few controlled studies, and control for confounding was inadequate in observational studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Title: Therapeutic strategies in an outbreak scenario to treat the novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China Content: A novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating in Wuhan, China presents a potential respiratory viral pandemic to the world population. Current efforts are focused on containment and quarantine of infected individuals. Ultimately, the outbreak could be controlled with a protective vaccine to prevent 2019-nCoV infection. While vaccine research should be pursued intensely, there exists today no therapy to treat 2019-nCoV upon infection, despite an urgent need to find options to help these patients and preclude potential death. Herein, I review the potential options to treat 2019-nCoV in patients, with an emphasis on the necessity for speed and timeliness in developing new and effective therapies in this outbreak. I consider the options of drug repurposing, developing neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy, and an oligonucleotide strategy targeting the viral RNA genome, emphasizing the promise and pitfalls of these approaches. Finally, I advocate for the fastest strategy to develop a treatment now, which could be resistant to any mutations the virus may have in the future. The proposal is a biologic that blocks 2019-nCoV entry using a soluble version of the viral receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), fused to an immunoglobulin Fc domain (ACE2-Fc), providing a neutralizing antibody with maximal breath to avoid any viral escape, while also helping to recruit the immune system to build lasting immunity. The ACE2-Fc therapy would also supplement decreased ACE2 levels in the lungs during infection, thereby directly treating acute respiratory distress pathophysiology as a third mechanism of action. The sequence of the ACE2-Fc protein is provided to investigators, allowing its possible use in recombinant protein expression systems to start producing drug today to treat patients under compassionate use, while formal clinical trials are later undertaken. Such a treatment could help infected patients before a protective vaccine is developed and widely available in the coming months to year(s).

Title: Impact of balanced versus unbalanced fluid resuscitation on clinical outcomes in critically ill children: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Content: BACKGROUND Isotonic crystalloid fluid bolus therapy is used in critically ill children to restore or maintain hemodynamic stability. However, the ideal choice of crystalloid remains to be determined. The most easily available and most frequently used crystalloid is 0.9% saline, an unbalanced crystalloid, that has been associated with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and acute kidney injury (AKI). Balanced fluids such as Ringer's lactate (RL) were developed to be closer to the composition of serum. However, they are more expensive and less readily available than 0.9% saline. Few trials have found RL to be associated with more favorable outcomes, but pediatric data is limited and inconsistent. The objective of the present systematic review is to review existing literature to determine the effect of balanced versus unbalanced fluid bolus therapy on metabolic acidosis in critically ill children. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review to retrieve all controlled trials and observational studies comparing balanced and unbalanced resuscitative fluids in critically ill children from age 28 days to 18 years old in any resuscitation settings. Search strategy was developed in collaboration with an experienced clinical research librarian. The primary outcome is the incidence and/or time to resolution of metabolic acidosis. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hyperchloremia, AKI, duration of renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, total volume of rehydration needed per day, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and length of stay and mortality. Study screening, inclusion, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias will be performed independently by two authors. We intend to perform a meta-analysis with studies that are compatible on the basis of population and outcomes. DISCUSSION Isotonic crystalloid fluid bolus therapy is a ubiquitous treatment in resuscitation of critically ill pediatric patients and yet there is no clear recommendation to support the choice of balanced versus unbalanced fluid. The present review will summarize current available data in the literature and assess whether recommendations can be generated regarding the choice of crystalloids or otherwise identify knowledge gaps which will open the door to a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Title: Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Prevention or Treatment of COVID-19 in Africa: Caution for Inappropriate Off-label Use in Healthcare Settings Content: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 pandemic has spread to Africa, where nearly all countries have reported laboratory-confirmed cases of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although there are ongoing clinical trials of repurposed and investigational antiviral and immune-based therapies, there are as yet no scientifically proven, clinically effective pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Among the repurposed drugs, the commonly used antimalarials chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have become the focus of global scientific, media, and political attention despite a lack of randomized clinical trials supporting their efficacy. Chloroquine has been used worldwide for about 75 years and is listed by the WHO as an essential medicine to treat malaria. Hydroxychloroquine is mainly used as a therapy for autoimmune diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of CQ/HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 remains to be defined. Indiscriminate promotion and widespread use of CQ/HCQ have led to extensive shortages, self-treatment, and fatal overdoses. Shortages and increased market prices leave all countries vulnerable to substandard and falsified medical products, and safety issues are especially concerning for Africa because of its healthcare system limitations. Much needed in Africa is a cross-continental collaborative network for coordinated production, distribution, and post-marketing surveillance aligned to low-cost distribution of any approved COVID-19 drug; this would ideally be piggybacked on existing global aid efforts. Meanwhile, African countries should strongly consider implementing prescription monitoring schemes to ensure that any off-label CQ/HCQ use is appropriate and beneficial during this pandemic.

Title: Effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen to treat adults with moderate to severe COVID-19: structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Content: OBJECTIVES: We will investigate the effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen in COVID-19 in patients that have tested positive and are moderately to severely ill. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single center, open label, randomized, controlled, parallel group, clinical trial that will be conducted at Loghman Hakim Medical Education Center in conjunction with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty COVID-19 confirmed cases (using the RT-PCR test) will be enrolled in the trial between April 9(th) to April 14(th) 2020. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention groups or the control group with the following eligibility criteria: ≥ 18 years of age AND (oxygen saturation (SPO2) ≤ 93% OR respiratory rate ≥ 24) AND at least one of the following: Contactless infrared forehead thermometer temperature of ≥37.8, cough, sputum production, nasal discharge, myalgia, headache or fatigue on admission, and time of onset of the symptoms should be acute (Days ≤ 14). Although Hydroxychloroquine will be administered in a single dose, patients with heart problems (prolonged QT or PR intervals, second- or third-degree heart block, and arrhythmias including torsade de pointes) will be excluded. Other exclusion criteria include using drugs with potential interaction with Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Interferon-β 1a, Interferon-β 1b, pregnant or lactating women, history of alcohol or drug addiction in the past 5 years, blood ALT/AST levels > 5 times the upper limit of normal on laboratory results and refusal to participate. This study will be undertaken at the Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: COVID-19 confirmed patients will be randomly assigned to one of three groups, with 20 patients in each. The first group (Arm 1) will receive Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-β 1a (Recigen), the second group (Arm 2) will be administered Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-β 1b (Ziferon), and the control group (Arm 3) will be treated by Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra). MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to clinical improvement is our primary outcome measure. This is an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) R&D. Geneva: World Health Organization) or discharge from the hospital, whichever comes first. Secondary outcomes include mortality from the date of randomization until the last day of the study which will be the day all of the patients have had at least one of the following outcomes: 1) Improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale. 2) Discharge from the hospital 3) Death. If any patient dies, we have reached an important secondary outcome. SpO2 Improvement between the last and first day of hospitalization, using pulse-oximetry. Duration of hospitalization from date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death from any cause, whichever comes first. Incidence of new mechanical ventilation uses from date of randomization until the last day of the study. Please note that we are trying to add further secondary outcomes and this section of the protocol is still evolving. Statistical analysis will be performed by R version 3.6.1 software. We will use Kaplan–Meier to analyze the time to clinical improvement (compared with a log-rank test). Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated using the Cox proportional-hazards model in crude and adjusted analysis. RANDOMIZATION: Eligible patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either Interferon Beta 1a, Interferon Beta 1b or standard care only. Patients will be randomly allocated to three therapeutic arms using permuted, block-randomization to balance the number of patients allocated to each group. The permuted block (three or six patients per block) randomization sequence will be generated, using Package ‘randomizeR’ in R software version 3.6.1. and placed in individual sealed and opaque envelopes by the statistician. The investigator will enroll the patients and only then open envelopes to assign patients to the different treatment groups. This method of allocation concealment will result in minimum selection and confounding biases. BLINDING (MASKING): The present research is open-label (no masking) of patients and health care professionals who are undertaking outcome assessment of the primary outcome - time to clinical improvement. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Of the 60 patients who underwent randomization, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta-1a, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta 1b plus standard care and the rest of patients were assigned to receive the standard care alone. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.2.1. Recruitment is finished, the start date of recruitment was on 9(th) April 2020 and the end date was on 14(th) April 2020. Last point of data collection will be the last day on which all of the 60 participants have had an outcome of clinical improvement or death, completing the study’s follow-up time window. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with National Institutes of Health Clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov; identification number NCT04343768, registered April 8, 2020 and first available online April 13, 2020). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Title: Effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen to treat adults with moderate to severe COVID-19: structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Content: OBJECTIVES: We will investigate the effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen in COVID-19 in patients that have tested positive and are moderately to severely ill. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single center, open label, randomized, controlled, parallel group, clinical trial that will be conducted at Loghman Hakim Medical Education Center in conjunction with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty COVID-19 confirmed cases (using the RT-PCR test) will be enrolled in the trial between April 9th to April 14th 2020. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention groups or the control group with the following eligibility criteria: ≥ 18 years of age AND (oxygen saturation (SPO2) ≤ 93% OR respiratory rate ≥ 24) AND at least one of the following: Contactless infrared forehead thermometer temperature of ≥37.8, cough, sputum production, nasal discharge, myalgia, headache or fatigue on admission, and time of onset of the symptoms should be acute (Days ≤ 14). Although Hydroxychloroquine will be administered in a single dose, patients with heart problems (prolonged QT or PR intervals, second- or third-degree heart block, and arrhythmias including torsade de pointes) will be excluded. Other exclusion criteria include using drugs with potential interaction with Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Interferon-ß 1a, Interferon-ß 1b, pregnant or lactating women, history of alcohol or drug addiction in the past 5 years, blood ALT/AST levels > 5 times the upper limit of normal on laboratory results and refusal to participate. This study will be undertaken at the Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: COVID-19 confirmed patients will be randomly assigned to one of three groups, with 20 patients in each. The first group (Arm 1) will receive Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-ß 1a (Recigen), the second group (Arm 2) will be administered Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-ß 1b (Ziferon), and the control group (Arm 3) will be treated by Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra). MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to clinical improvement is our primary outcome measure. This is an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) R&D. Geneva: World Health Organization) or discharge from the hospital, whichever comes first. Secondary outcomes include mortality from the date of randomization until the last day of the study which will be the day all of the patients have had at least one of the following outcomes: 1) Improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale. 2) Discharge from the hospital 3) Death. If any patient dies, we have reached an important secondary outcome. SpO2 Improvement between the last and first day of hospitalization, using pulse-oximetry. Duration of hospitalization from date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death from any cause, whichever comes first. Incidence of new mechanical ventilation uses from date of randomization until the last day of the study. Please note that we are trying to add further secondary outcomes and this section of the protocol is still evolving. Statistical analysis will be performed by R version 3.6.1 software. We will use Kaplan-Meier to analyze the time to clinical improvement (compared with a log-rank test). Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated using the Cox proportional-hazards model in crude and adjusted analysis. RANDOMIZATION: Eligible patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either Interferon Beta 1a, Interferon Beta 1b or standard care only. Patients will be randomly allocated to three therapeutic arms using permuted, block-randomization to balance the number of patients allocated to each group. The permuted block (three or six patients per block) randomization sequence will be generated, using Package 'randomizeR' in R software version 3.6.1. and placed in individual sealed and opaque envelopes by the statistician. The investigator will enroll the patients and only then open envelopes to assign patients to the different treatment groups. This method of allocation concealment will result in minimum selection and confounding biases. BLINDING (MASKING): The present research is open-label (no masking) of patients and health care professionals who are undertaking outcome assessment of the primary outcome - time to clinical improvement. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Of the 60 patients who underwent randomization, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta-1a, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta 1b plus standard care and the rest of patients were assigned to receive the standard care alone. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.2.1. Recruitment is finished, the start date of recruitment was on 9th April 2020 and the end date was on 14th April 2020. Last point of data collection will be the last day on which all of the 60 participants have had an outcome of clinical improvement or death, completing the study's follow-up time window. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with National Institutes of Health Clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov; identification number NCT04343768, registered April 8, 2020 and first available online April 13, 2020). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Title: Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey. Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial-related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

Title: Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial-related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

Title: ChemoPROphyLaxIs with hydroxychloroquine For covId-19 infeCtious disease (PROLIFIC) to prevent covid-19 infection in frontline healthcare workers: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Content: OBJECTIVES: PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether chemoprophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo increases time to contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in frontline healthcare workers. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine whether chemoprophylaxis with daily versus weekly dosing of hydroxychloroquine increases time to contracting COVID-19 disease in frontline healthcare workers. 2) To compare the number of COVID-19 cases between each trial arm on the basis of positive tests (as per current clinical testing methods and/or serology) 3) To compare the percentage of COVID-19 positive individuals with current testing methods versus serologically-proven COVID-19 in each trial arm 4) To compare COVID-19 disease severity in each trial arm 5) To compare recovery time from COVID-19 infection in each trial arm EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine compliance (as measured by trough pharmacokinetic hydroxychloroquine levels) on COVID-19 positive tests 2) To determine if genetic factors determine susceptibility to COVID-19 disease or response to treatment 3) To determine if blood group determines susceptibility to COVID-19 disease 4) To compare serum biomarkers of COVID-19 disease in each arm TRIAL DESIGN: Double-blind, multi-centre, 2-arm (3:3:2 ratio) randomised placebo-controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: National Health Service (NHS) workers who have direct patient contact delivering care to patients with COVID-19. Participants in the trial will be recruited from a number of NHS hospitals directly caring for patients with COVID-19. INCLUSION CRITERIA: To be included in the trial the participant MUST: 1) Have given written informed consent to participate 2) Be aged 18 years to 70 years 3) Not previously have been diagnosed with COVID-19 4) Work in a high-risk secondary or tertiary healthcare setting (hospitals accepting COVID-19 patients) with direct patient-facing care EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The presence of any of the following will mean participants are ineligible: 1) Known COVID-19 positive test at baseline (if available) 2) Symptomatic for possible COVID-19 at baseline 3) Known hypersensitivity reaction to hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine or 4-aminoquinolines 4) Known retinal disease 5) Known porphyria 6) Known chronic kidney disease (CKD; eGFR<30ml/min) 7) Known epilepsy 8) Known heart failure or conduction problems 9) Known significant liver disease (Gilbert's syndrome is permitted) 10) Known glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency 11) Currently taking any of the following contraindicated medications: Digoxin, Chloroquine, Halofantrine, Amiodarone, Moxifloxacin, Cyclosporin, Mefloquine, Praziquantel, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Prochlorperazine, Fluconazole 12) Currently taking hydroxychloroquine or having a clinical indication for taking hydroxychloroquine 13) Currently breastfeeding 14) Unable to be followed-up during the trial 15) Current or future involvement in the active treatment phase of other interventional research studies (excluding observational/non-interventional studies) before study follow-up visit 16) Not able to use or have access to a modern phone device/web-based technology 17) Any other clinical reason which may preclude entry in the opinion of the investigator INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Interventions being evaluated are: A) Daily hydroxychloroquine or B) Weekly hydroxychloroquine or C) Placebo The maximum treatment period is approximately 13 weeks per participant. Hydroxychloroquine-identical matched placebo tablets will ensure that all participants are taking the same number and dosing regimen of tablets across the three trial arms. There is no variation in the dose of hydroxychloroquine by weight. The dosing regimen for the three arms of the study (A, B, C) are described in further detail below. Arm A: Active Hydroxychloroquine (- daily dosing and placebo-matched hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing). Form: Tablets Route: Oral. Dose and Frequency: Active hydroxychloroquine: Days 1-2: Loading phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken twice a day for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 200mg (1 x 200mg tablet) taken once daily, every day for 90 days (~3 months) Matched Placebo hydroxychloroquine: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 2 tablets taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) Arm B: Active Hydroxychloroquine (- weekly dosing and placebo matched hydroxychloroquine - daily dosing.) Form: Tablets Route: Oral. Dose and Frequency: Active hydroxychloroquine: Days 1-2: Loading Phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken twice daily for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) Matched Placebo hydroxychloroquine: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 1 tablet taken once daily for 90 days (~3 months) Arm C: Matched placebo Hydroxychloroquine (- daily dosing and matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing.) Form: Table. Route: Oral. Frequency: Matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - daily dosing: Days 1-2: Loading Phase - 2 tablets taken twice daily for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 1 tablet taken once daily for 90 days (~3 months) Matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 2 tablets taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) A schematic of the dosing schedule can be found in the full study protocol (Additional File 1). MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to diagnosis of positive COVID-19 disease (defined by record of date of symptoms onset and confirmed by laboratory test) RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to either hydroxychloroquine dosed daily with weekly placebo, HCQ dosed weekly with daily placebo, or placebo dosed daily and weekly. Randomisation will be in a 3:3:2 ratio [hydroxychloroquine-(daily), hydroxychloroquine-(weekly), placebo], using stratified block randomisation. Random block sizes will be used, and stratification will be by study site. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants and trial investigators consenting participants, delivering trial assessments and procedures will be blinded to intervention. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sufficient number of participants will be enrolled so that approximately 1000 participants in total will have data suitable for the primary statistical analysis. It is anticipated that approximately 1,200 participants will need to be enrolled in total, to allow for a 20% dropout over the period of the trial. This would result in approximately 450:450:300 participants randomised to hydroxychloroquine daily, hydroxychloroquine weekly+daily matched placebo or matched-placebo daily and weekly. TRIAL STATUS: V 1.0, 7th April 2020 EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT Number: 2020-001331-26 Date of registration: 14th April 2020 Trial registered before first participant enrolment. Trial site is Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Recruitment started on 11th May 2020. It is anticipated that the trial will run for 12 months. The recruitment end date cannot yet be accurately predicted. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Title: A brief review of antiviral drugs evaluated in registered clinical trials for COVID-19 Content: Background: Although a number of antiviral agents have been evaluated for coronaviruses there are no approved drugs available. To provide an overview of the landscape of therapeutic research for COVID-19, we conducted a review of registered clinical trials. Methods: A review of currently registered clinical trials was performed on registries, including the Chinese (chictr.org.cn) and US (clinicaltrials.gov) databases to identify relevant studies up to March, 7th 2020. The search was conducted using the search terms “2019-nCoV”, “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Hcov-19”, “new coronavirus”, “novel coronavirus”. We included interventional clinical trials focusing on patients with COVID-19 and assessing antiviral drugs or agents. Findings: Out of the 353 studies identified, 115 clinical trials were selected for data extraction. Phase IV trials were the most commonly reported study type (n=27, 23%). However, 62 trials (54%) did not describe the phase of the study. Eighty percent (n=92) of the trials were randomized with parallel assignment and the median number of planned inclusions was 63 (IQR, 36-120). Open-label studies were the most frequent (46%) followed by double-blind (13%) and single blind studies (10%). The most frequently assessed therapies were: stem cells therapy (n=23 trials), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=15), chloroquine (n=11), umifenovir (n=9), hydroxychloroquine (n=7), plasma treatment (n=7), favipiravir (n=7), methylprednisolone (n=5), and remdesivir (n=5). Remdesivir was tested in 5 trials with a median of 400 (IQR, 394-453) planned inclusions per trial, while stem cells therapy was tested in 23 trials, but had a median of 40 (IQR, 23-60) planned inclusions per trial. Lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with the highest total number of planned inclusions (2606) followed by remdesivir (2155). Only 52% of the clinical trials reported the treatment dose (n=60) and only 34% (n=39) the duration. The primary outcome was clinical in 76 studies (66%), virological in 27 (23%); radiological in 9 (8%) or immunological in three studies (3%). Interpretation: Numerous clinical trials have been registered since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a number of information regarding drugs or trial design were lacking. Funding: None

Title: A Comprehensive Analysis of Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era. Content: Background and objective: Despite medical advances, we are facing the unprecedented disaster of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic without available treatments and effective vaccines. As the COVID-19 pandemic has approached its culmination, desperate efforts have been made to seek proper treatments and response strategies, and the number of clinical trials has been rapidly increasing. In this time of the pandemic, it is believed that learning lessons from it would be meaningful in preparing for future pandemics. Thus, this study aims at providing a comprehensive landscape of COVID-19 related clinical trials based on the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Materials and methods: Up to 30 March 2020, we identified a total of 147 eligible clinical trials and reviewed the overview of the studies. Results: Until then, the most clinical trials were set up in China. Treatment approaches are the most frequent purpose of the registered studies. Chloroquine, interferon, and antiviral agents such as remdesivir, lopinavir, and ritonavir are agents under investigation in these trials. Conclusions: In this study, we introduced the promising therapeutic options that many researchers and clinicians are interested in, and to address the hidden issues behind clinical trials in this COVID-19 pandemic.

Title: A Comprehensive Analysis of Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era Content: Background and objective: Despite medical advances, we are facing the unprecedented disaster of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic without available treatments and effective vaccines. As the COVID-19 pandemic has approached its culmination, desperate efforts have been made to seek proper treatments and response strategies, and the number of clinical trials has been rapidly increasing. In this time of the pandemic, it is believed that learning lessons from it would be meaningful in preparing for future pandemics. Thus, this study aims at providing a comprehensive landscape of COVID-19 related clinical trials based on the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Materials and methods: Up to 30 March 2020, we identified a total of 147 eligible clinical trials and reviewed the overview of the studies. Results: Until then, the most clinical trials were set up in China. Treatment approaches are the most frequent purpose of the registered studies. Chloroquine, interferon, and antiviral agents such as remdesivir, lopinavir, and ritonavir are agents under investigation in these trials. Conclusions: In this study, we introduced the promising therapeutic options that many researchers and clinicians are interested in, and to address the hidden issues behind clinical trials in this COVID-19 pandemic.

Title: Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. Content: CONTEXT The findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are used for clinical decision making. The European Association of Urology has committed increasing resources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs. OBJECTIVE In this paper, we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible. When conducting a SR, the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question. An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis. Data are extracted independently by two reviewers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In SRs, data for particular outcomes in individual randomised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta-analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough. Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size, resulting in heterogeneity in outcome between studies. A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for randomised controlled trials. In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity, or when a review has included nonrandomised comparative studies, it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis. The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system, which can be applied to all evidence, regardless of quality. A SR not only identifies, evaluates, and summarises the best available evidence, but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies. CONCLUSIONS SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential in their production. We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this paper.

Title: Clinical trials impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: Adaptive designs to the rescue? Content: Very recently the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The pandemic has a number of consequences for the ongoing clinical trials in non-COVID-19 conditions. Motivated by four currently ongoing clinical trials in a variety of disease areas we illustrate the challenges faced by the pandemic and sketch out possible solutions including adaptive designs. Guidance is provided on (i) where blinded adaptations can help; (ii) how to achieve type I error rate control, if required; (iii) how to deal with potential treatment effect heterogeneity; (iv) how to utilize early readouts; and (v) how to utilize Bayesian techniques. In more detail approaches to resizing a trial affected by the pandemic are developed including considerations to stop a trial early, the use of group-sequential designs or sample size adjustment. All methods considered are implemented in a freely available R shiny app. Furthermore, regulatory and operational issues including the role of data monitoring committees are discussed.

Title: Potential pharmacological agents for COVID-19. Content: A novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) first emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has become a global pandemic. Currently, the management of COVID-19 infection is mainly supportive. Several clinical trials worldwide are evaluating several drugs approved for other indications, as well as multiple investigational agents for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Here, we give a brief overview of pharmacological agents and other therapies which are under investigation as treatment options or adjunctive agents for patients infected with COVID-19 and for chemoprophylaxis for the prevention of COVID-19 infection. At the time of writing this commentary, there is no peer-reviewed published evidence from randomized clinical trials of any pharmacological agents improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. However, it was reported that remdesivir an investigational antiviral agent hastens clinical recovery, but a study is yet to be published in peer-reviewed medical journal.

Title: Potential pharmacological agents for COVID-19 Content: A novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) first emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has become a global pandemic. Currently, the management of COVID-19 infection is mainly supportive. Several clinical trials worldwide are evaluating several drugs approved for other indications, as well as multiple investigational agents for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Here, we give a brief overview of pharmacological agents and other therapies which are under investigation as treatment options or adjunctive agents for patients infected with COVID-19 and for chemoprophylaxis for the prevention of COVID-19 infection. At the time of writing this commentary, there is no peer-reviewed published evidence from randomized clinical trials of any pharmacological agents improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. However, it was reported that remdesivir an investigational antiviral agent hastens clinical recovery, but a study is yet to be published in peer-reviewed medical journal.

Title: Remote Methods for Conducting Tobacco-Focused Clinical Trials. Content: Most tobacco-focused clinical trials are based on locally-conducted studies that face significant challenges to implementation and successful execution. These challenges include the need for large, diverse, yet still representative study samples. This often means a protracted, costly, and inefficient recruitment process. Multi-site clinical trials can overcome some of these hurdles but incur their own unique challenges. With recent advances in mobile health (mHealth) and digital technologies, there is now a promising alternative: Remote Trials. These trials are led and coordinated by a local investigative team, but are based remotely, within a given community, state, or even nation. The remote approach affords many of the benefits of multi-site trials (more efficient recruitment of larger study samples) without the same barriers (cost, multi-site management, regulatory hurdles). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global health pandemic has resulted in rapid requirements to shift ongoing clinical trials to remote delivery and assessment platforms, making methods for the conduct of remote trials even more timely. The purpose of the present manuscript it to provide an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials as well as illustrative examples of how these methods have been implemented across recently completed and ongoing tobacco studies. We focus on key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline including remote: 1) study recruitment and screening, 2) informed consent, 3) assessment, 4) biomarker collection, and 5) medication adherence monitoring.

Title: Remote Methods for Conducting Tobacco-Focused Clinical Trials Content: Most tobacco-focused clinical trials are based on locally-conducted studies that face significant challenges to implementation and successful execution. These challenges include the need for large, diverse, yet still representative study samples. This often means a protracted, costly, and inefficient recruitment process. Multi-site clinical trials can overcome some of these hurdles but incur their own unique challenges. With recent advances in mobile health (mHealth) and digital technologies, there is now a promising alternative: Remote Trials. These trials are led and coordinated by a local investigative team, but are based remotely, within a given community, state, or even nation. The remote approach affords many of the benefits of multi-site trials (more efficient recruitment of larger study samples) without the same barriers (cost, multi-site management, regulatory hurdles). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global health pandemic has resulted in rapid requirements to shift ongoing clinical trials to remote delivery and assessment platforms, making methods for the conduct of remote trials even more timely. The purpose of the present manuscript it to provide an overview of available methods for the conduct of remote tobacco-focused clinical trials as well as illustrative examples of how these methods have been implemented across recently completed and ongoing tobacco studies. We focus on key aspects of the clinical trial pipeline including remote: 1) study recruitment and screening, 2) informed consent, 3) assessment, 4) biomarker collection, and 5) medication adherence monitoring.

Title: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome: Current Therapeutic Options and Potential Targets for Novel Therapies Content: No specific antivirals are currently available for two emerging infectious diseases, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). A literature search covering pathogenesis, clinical features and therapeutics, clinically developed drugs for repurposing and novel drug targets was performed. This review presents current knowledge on the epidemiology, pathogenesis and clinical features of the SARS and MERS coronaviruses. The rationale for and outcomes with treatments used for SARS and MERS is discussed. The main focus of the review is on drug development and the potential that drugs approved for other indications provide for repurposing. The drugs we discuss belong to a wide range of different drug classes, such as cancer therapeutics, antipsychotics, and antimalarials. In addition to their activity against MERS and SARS coronaviruses, many of these approved drugs have broad-spectrum potential and have already been in clinical use for treating other viral infections. A wealth of knowledge is available for these drugs. However, the information in this review is not meant to guide clinical decisions, and any therapeutic described here should only be used in context of a clinical trial. Potential targets for novel antivirals and antibodies are discussed as well as lessons learned from treatment development for other RNA viruses. The article concludes with a discussion of the gaps in our knowledge and areas for future research on emerging coronaviruses.

Title: The vaccine journey for COVID-19: a comprehensive systematic review of current clinical trials in humans. Content: INTRODUCTION Since December 2019, there has been an outbreak of a novel beta-coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. On March the 11th the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, with over 118,000 cases in more than 110 countries around the world. In response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency, clinical trial research assessing the efficacy and safety of experimental vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are emerging at an unprecedented rate. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the preliminary experiences and ongoing clinical trials of the major candidates and challenges of the vaccine strategies in humans. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION After a priori protocol registration with PROSPERO (181483), a systematic research of the published literature was conducted on 24 April 2020 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), and WHO databases. Moreover, to explore the more recent literature we also searched the preprint server medRxiv. Finally, we scrutinized the Cochrane COVID-19 study register and the COVID-19 section of ClinicalTrials.gov database for identifying relevant ongoing clinical trials. Thereafter we selected the articles according to the PRISMA guidelines. Animal or in-vitro experimental studies were excluded. Moreover editorials, commentaries, abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and articles not in English were not included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Our search identified 1359 published papers, 478 pre-print articles and 367 ongoing clinical trials. Finally, only ten ongoing clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Specifically, seven developed vaccines for the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and three clinical trials assessed the protective role of BCG vaccine against COVID-19. The first group included phase I/II trials with different types of molecules (DNA or mRNA vaccine, bacterial plasmid or viral vectors), the latter were phase III/IV trials designed on the basis of a heterologous lymphocyte activation by the BCG vaccine. CONCLUSIONS This new disease is pushing the scientific community to develop swiftly a safe and effective vaccine. Notwithstanding the limitations of our analysis, given by the absence of available results, we try to provide a comprehensive view of the ongoing clinical trials in humans. Our analysis reveals a worldwide effort of both scientists and enterprises to achieve one of the most challenging goals of our century.

Title: The vaccine journey for COVID-19: a comprehensive systematic review of current clinical trials in humans Content: INTRODUCTION: Since December 2019, there has been an outbreak of a novel beta-coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. On March the 11th the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, with over 118,000 cases in more than 110 countries around the world. In response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency, clinical trial research assessing the efficacy and safety of experimental vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are emerging at an unprecedented rate. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the preliminary experiences and ongoing clinical trials of the major candidates and challenges of the vaccine strategies in humans. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: After a priori protocol registration with PROSPERO (181483), a systematic research of the published literature was conducted on 24 April 2020 using Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), and WHO databases. Moreover, to explore the more recent literature we also searched the preprint server medRxiv. Finally, we scrutinized the Cochrane COVID-19 study register and the COVID-19 section of ClinicalTrials.gov database for identifying relevant ongoing clinical trials. Thereafter we selected the articles according to the PRISMA guidelines. Animal or in-vitro experimental studies were excluded. Moreover editorials, commentaries, abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and articles not in English were not included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our search identified 1359 published papers, 478 pre-print articles and 367 ongoing clinical trials. Finally, only ten ongoing clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Specifically, seven developed vaccines for the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and three clinical trials assessed the protective role of BCG vaccine against COVID-19. The first group included phase I/II trials with different types of molecules (DNA or mRNA vaccine, bacterial plasmid or viral vectors), the latter were phase III/IV trials designed on the basis of a heterologous lymphocyte activation by the BCG vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: This new disease is pushing the scientific community to develop swiftly a safe and effective vaccine. Notwithstanding the limitations of our analysis, given by the absence of available results, we try to provide a comprehensive view of the ongoing clinical trials in humans. Our analysis reveals a worldwide effort of both scientists and enterprises to achieve one of the most challenging goals of our century.

Title: Optimizing telemedicine to facilitate amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials Content: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has the largest drug pipeline among neuromuscular diseases, with over 160 companies actively involved in ALS research. There is a growing need to recruit trial participants, but ALS patients often have limited mobility and most ALS trials are conducted in a small number of major centers. These factors effectively limit patient participation, particularly for those in rural areas. The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated the more widespread use of telemedicine technology for clinical care, and has prompted consideration of its increased use for clinical trials. In this opinion piece, we describe the current state of telemedicine for recruitment, consenting, and screening of participants for clinical trials. We also summarize the available data on remote administration of outcome measures. Current challenges include validation of outcome measures for remote assessment, as well as technological, regulatory, and licensure barriers.

Title: Psychological therapies for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. Content: BACKGROUND Long-term physical conditions affect 10% to 12% of children and adolescents worldwide. These individuals are at greater risk of developing psychological problems, particularly anxiety and depression, sometimes directly related to their illness or medical care (e.g. health-related anxiety). There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of psychological therapies for treating anxiety and depression in this population. Therapies designed for children and adolescents without medical issues may or may not be appropriate for use with those who have long-term physical conditions. OBJECTIVES This review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies in comparison with controls (treatment-as-usual, waiting list, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or non-psychological treatment) for treating anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. SEARCH METHODS We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 27 September 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to May 2016). In addition we searched the Web of Science (Core Collection) (12 October 2018) and conducted a cited reference search for reports of all included trials. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, reference lists of included articles, and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials of psychological therapies for treating anxiety or depression in children with long-term physical conditions were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Abstracts and complete articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Discrepancies were addressed by a third author. Odds ratio (OR) was used for comparing dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMD) for comparing continuous data. Meta-analysis was undertaken when treatments, participants, and the underlying clinical question were similar. Otherwise, narrative analysis of data was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-eight RCTs and one cross-over trial with 1349 participants were included in the review. Most participants were recruited from community settings and hospital clinics in high-income countries. For the primary outcome of treatment efficacy, short-term depression (versus any control), there was low-quality evidence from 16 trials involving 1121 participants suggesting that psychological therapies may be more effective than control therapies (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; I2 = 79%). For the primary outcome of treatment efficacy, short-term anxiety (versus any control), there was inadequate evidence of moderate-quality from 13 studies involving 578 participants to determine whether psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions (SMD -0.26, CI -0.59 to 0.07, I2 = 72%). Planned sensitivity analyses could not be undertaken for risk of bias due to the small number of trials that rated high for each domain. Additional sensitivity analysis demonstrated that psychological interventions specifically designed to reduce anxiety or depression were more effective than psychological therapies designed to improve other symptoms or general coping. There was some suggestion from subgroup analyses that they type of intervention (Chi² = 14.75, df = 5 (P = 0.01), I² = 66.1%), the severity of depression (Chi² = 23.29, df = 4 (P = 0.0001), I² = 82.8%) and the type of long-term physical condition (Chi² = 10.55, df = 4 (P = 0.03), I² = 62.1%) may have an impact on the overall treatment effect.There was qualitative (reported), but not quantitative evidence confirming the acceptability of selected psychological therapies for anxiety and depression. There was low-quality evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions in improving quality of life (SMD 1.13, CI 0.44 to 1.82, I2 = 89%) and symptoms of long-term physical conditions (SMD -0.34, CI -0.6 to -0.06, I2 = 70%), but only in the short term. There was inadequate low-quality evidence to determine whether psychological therapies were more effective than control conditions at improving functioning in either the short term or long term. No trials of therapies for addressing health-related anxiety were identified and only two trials reported adverse effects; these were unrelated to psychological therapies. Overall, the evidence was of low to moderate quality, results were heterogeneous, and only one trial had an available protocol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS A limited number of trials of variable quality have been undertaken to assess whether psychological therapies are effective for treating anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. According to the available evidence, therapies specifically designed to treat anxiety or depression (especially those based on principles of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)) may be more likely to work in children and adolescents who have mild to moderate levels of symptoms of these disorders, at least in the short term. There is a dearth of therapies specifically designed to treat health-related anxiety in this age group.

Title: Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis Content: OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological effects on clinicians of working to manage novel viral outbreaks, and successful measures to manage stress and psychological distress. DESIGN: Rapid review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, searched up to late March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Any study that described the psychological reactions of healthcare staff working with patients in an outbreak of any emerging virus in any clinical setting, irrespective of any comparison with other clinicians or the general population. RESULTS: 59 papers met the inclusion criteria: 37 were of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), eight of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), seven of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), three each of Ebola virus disease and influenza A virus subtype H1N1, and one of influenza A virus subtype H7N9. Of the 38 studies that compared psychological outcomes of healthcare workers in direct contact with affected patients, 25 contained data that could be combined in a pairwise meta-analysis comparing healthcare workers at high and low risk of exposure. Compared with lower risk controls, staff in contact with affected patients had greater levels of both acute or post-traumatic stress (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.29) and psychological distress (1.74, 1.50 to 2.03), with similar results for continuous outcomes. These findings were the same as in the other studies not included in the meta-analysis. Risk factors for psychological distress included being younger, being more junior, being the parents of dependent children, or having an infected family member. Longer quarantine, lack of practical support, and stigma also contributed. Clear communication, access to adequate personal protection, adequate rest, and both practical and psychological support were associated with reduced morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions are available to help mitigate the psychological distress experienced by staff caring for patients in an emerging disease outbreak. These interventions were similar despite the wide range of settings and types of outbreaks covered in this review, and thus could be applicable to the current covid-19 outbreak.

Title: Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: A living systematic review Content: OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L-OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L-OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L-OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 23, 2020 (one day before submission). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomised trials evaluating the effect of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomised trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 1,043 records but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomised trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision makers in the near future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020179711

Title: Simian adenovirus vector production for early-phase clinical trials: A simple method applicable to multiple serotypes and using entirely disposable product-contact components Content: A variety of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliant processes have been reported for production of non-replicating adenovirus vectors, but important challenges remain. Most clinical development of adenovirus vectors now uses simian adenoviruses or rare human serotypes, whereas reported manufacturing processes mainly use serotypes such as AdHu5 which are of questionable relevance for clinical vaccine development. Many clinically relevant vaccine transgenes interfere with adenovirus replication, whereas most reported process development uses selected antigens or even model transgenes such as fluorescent proteins which cause little such interference. Processes are typically developed for a single adenovirus serotype – transgene combination, requiring extensive further optimization for each new vaccine. There is a need for rapid production platforms for small GMP batches of non-replicating adenovirus vectors for early-phase vaccine trials, particularly in preparation for response to emerging pathogen outbreaks. Such platforms must be robust to variation in the transgene, and ideally also capable of producing adenoviruses of more than one serotype. It is also highly desirable for such processes to be readily implemented in new facilities using commercially available single-use materials, avoiding the need for development of bespoke tools or cleaning validation, and for them to be readily scalable for later-stage studies. Here we report the development of such a process, using single-use stirred-tank bioreactors, a transgene-repressing HEK293 cell – promoter combination, and fully single-use filtration and ion exchange components. We demonstrate applicability of the process to candidate vaccines against rabies, malaria and Rift Valley fever, each based on a different adenovirus serotype. We compare performance of a range of commercially available ion exchange media, including what we believe to be the first published use of a novel media for adenovirus purification (NatriFlo® HD-Q, Merck). We demonstrate the need for minimal process individualization for each vaccine, and that the product fulfils regulatory quality expectations. Cell-specific yields are at the upper end of those previously reported in the literature, and volumetric yields are in the range 1 × 10(13) – 5 × 10(13) purified virus particles per litre of culture, such that a 2–4 L process is comfortably adequate to produce vaccine for early-phase trials. The process is readily transferable to any GMP facility with the capability for mammalian cell culture and aseptic filling of sterile products.

Title: Remdesivir in Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Benefit-Risk Assessment Content: INTRODUCTION: There is a need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) rapidly, given the current, ongoing pandemic. A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to examine the benefit-risk profile of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation, which starts with inevitably limited information (to meet the urgent unmet public health need worldwide), then update the benefit-risk evaluation as more data become available. METHODS: The Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used to assess the overall benefit-risk of the use of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and government agency websites to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking remdesivir for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance. RESULTS: Using the BRAT method, several key benefits and risks for use of remdesivir in COVID-19 compared with placebo have been identified. In one trial, the benefit of time to clinical improvement was not statistically significant (21 vs 23 days, HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.75), although the study was underpowered. In another trial, a shorter time to recovery in patients treated with remdesivir was observed (11 vs 15 days), with non-significant reduced mortality risk (8% vs 12%). Risk data were only available from one trial. This trial reported fewer serious adverse events in patients taking remdesivir (18%) compared with the placebo group (26%); however, more patients in the remdesivir group discontinued treatment as a result of an adverse event compared with those patients receiving placebo (12% vs 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary clinical trial results suggest that there may be a favourable benefit-risk profile for remdesivir compared with placebo in severe COVID-19 infection and further data on benefits would strengthen this evaluation. There is limited safety data for remdesivir, which should be obtained in further studies. The current framework summarises the key anticipated benefits and risks for which further data are needed. Ongoing clinical trial data can be incorporated into the framework when available to provide an updated benefit-risk assessment.