ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0530-9157
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 04-06-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.04.21257852
Abstract: Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease stage and severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation ‘living’ guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate 3 mild-severe 18 mild-critical 5 moderate-severe 8 moderate-critical 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations notably extrapolation of “lack of therapeutic benefit” shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and in idual patient data meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 19-07-2022
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PGPH.0000561
Abstract: Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation ‘living’ guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated, 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate 3 mild-severe 18 mild-critical 5 moderate-severe 8 moderate-critical 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations notably extrapolation of “lack of therapeutic benefit” shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and in idual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19. Achieving this goal will require improved coordination of the main stakeholders developing treatment guidelines and medicine regulatory agencies. Open science, including prompt data sharing, should become the standard to allow IPD meta-analyses.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 25-01-2022
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.17284.1
Abstract: Background: Many available medicines have been evaluated as potential repurposed treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We summarise the registered study landscape for 32 priority pharmacological treatments identified following consultation with external experts of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition. Methods: All eligible trial registry records identified by systematic searches of the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as of 26 th May 2021 were reviewed and extracted. A descriptive summary of study characteristics was performed. Results: We identified 1,314 registered studies that included at least one of the 32 priority pharmacological interventions. The majority (1,043, 79%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The s le size of the RCTs identified was typically small (median (25 th , 75 th percentile) s le size = 140 patients (70, 383)), i.e. in idually powered only to show very large effects. The most extensively evaluated medicine was hydroxychloroquine (418 registered studies). Other widely studied interventions were convalescent plasma (n=208), ritonavir (n=189) usually combined with lopinavir (n=181), and azithromycin (n=147). Very few RCTs planned to recruit participants in low-income countries (n=14 1.3%). A minority of studies (348, 26%) indicated a willingness to share in idual participant data. The living systematic review data are available at iddo.cognitive.city Conclusions: There are many registered studies planning to evaluate available medicines as potential repurposed treatments of COVID-19. Most of these planned studies are small, and therefore substantially underpowered for most relevant endpoints. Very few are large enough to have any chance of providing enough convincing evidence to change policies and practices. The sharing of in idual participant data (IPD) from these studies would allow pooled IPD meta-analyses which could generate definitive conclusions, but most registered studies did not indicate that they were willing to share their data.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for AbdulAzeez Lawal.