THE TIME COURSE OF THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS FOR COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The spread of COVID-19 from Wuhan China, has been alarmingly rapid. Epidemiologic techniques succeeded in containing the disease in China, but efforts have not been as successful in the rest of the World, with a total of 29,155,581 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 926,544 deaths worldwide as of September 15, 2020. Projections are for continued new infections and deaths if no effective therapeutic interventions can be initiated over the next several months. We performed a systematic review to determine the potential time course for development of treatments and vaccines, focusing on availability now and continuing in the last half of 2020. METHODS Clinical Trials We reviewed up-to-date information from several sources to identify potential treatments for COVID-19: The Reagan-Udall Expanded Access Navigator COVID-19 Treatment Hub was used to track the efforts of companies to develop agents. We focused on trials completed as of September 1, 2020 on identified agents We used several different sources: (A) covid-trials.org, then validated results on (B) clinicaltrials.gov and the (C) World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We excluded studies which were clearly observational, with no randomization, control, or comparison group. We further set a cutoff of 100 for numbers of subjects, since smaller trial size could lack statistical power to establish superiority of the intervention over the control. Publications We searched for published trial results on pubmed.gov and on medRxiv, the preprint server, and used a targeted Google™ search to find announcements of unpublished trial results RESULTS Clinical Trials in Recruitment As of our cutoff date of April 1, 2020, we found 409 trials meeting our minimum requirement of 100 subjects. The WHO Solidarity megatrial for hospitalized patients was launched in over 100 countries, actively comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone and in combination with interferon beta-1, and remdesivir. The LPV/r alone and HCQ arms have already been discontinued. Of these, only 9 were conducted on outpatients. A few vaccine trials are hoping to complete Phase 3 enrollment by the end of the third quarter 2020, but a prolonged follow-up of patients will likely be required. Clinical trials Completed As of September 1, 2020, there were 231 trials reporting completion, Of these, only 59 studies enrolled 100 or more subjects. There were 34 trials in hospitalized patients, 9 directed at outpatients, and 8 prevention studies, Published Data As of September 1, 2020 we found 70 publications reporting findings in human studies on 13 classes of drugs and on 6 vaccines. There were 33 randomized placebo or active control studies; the rest were retrospective observational. Only seven publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients. Available Treatments At this time, remdesivir and convalescent plasma have been granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.A., solely for hospitalized patients. There is also support for glucocorticoid treatment of the COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome. No treatments or prophylaxis are offered for outpatients. CONCLUSION COVID-19 is propagated primarily by infected ambulatory individuals. There have been no options brought forward for prevention and non-hospital treatment with only a few randomized, controlled outpatient studies expected to yield results in time to impact on the continuing pandemic by the end of 2020. It will be necessary for public health authorities to make hard decisions, with limited data, to prevent the continued spread of the disease. The choices will be hardest when dealing with possible early release of safe and effective vaccines which would, of course, be of greatest benefit to the World’s population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".