Browsing by Author "Rayner, Craig R."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemAccelerating clinical evaluation of repurposed combination therapies for COVID-19(American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2020-08-21) Rayner, Craig R.; Dron, Louis; Park, Jay J. H.; Decloedt, Eric H.; Cotton, Mark F.; Niranjan, Vis; Smith, Patrick F.; Dodds, Michael G.; Brown, Fran; Reis, Gilmar; Wesche, David; Mills, Edward J.As the global COVID-19 pandemic continues, unabated and clinical trials demonstrate limited effective pharmaceutical interventions, there is a pressing need to accelerate treatment evaluations. Among options for accelerated development is the evaluation of drug combinations in the absence of prior monotherapy data. This approach is appealing for a number of reasons. First, combining two or more drugs with related or complementary therapeutic effects permits a multipronged approach addressing the variable pathways of the disease. Second, if an individual component of a combination offers a therapeutic effect, then in the absence of antagonism, a trial of combination therapy should still detect individual efficacy. Third, this strategy is time saving. Rather than taking a stepwise approach to evaluating monotherapies, this strategy begins with testing all relevant therapeutic options. Finally, given the severity of the current pandemic and the absence of treatment options, the likelihood of detecting a treatment effect with combination therapy maintains scientific enthusiasm for evaluating repurposed treatments. Antiviral combination selection can be facilitated by insights regarding SARS-CoV-2 pathophysiology and cell cycle dynamics, supported by infectious disease and clinical pharmacology expert advice. We describe a clinical evaluation strategy using adaptive combination platform trials to rapidly test combination therapies to treat COVID-19.
- ItemClinical trials of disease stages in COVID 19 : complicated and often misinterpreted(Elsevier, 2020-08-20) Park, Jay J. H.; Decloedt, Eric H.; Rayner, Craig R.; Cotton, Mark; Mills, Edward J.As of July 28, 2020, 1840 clinical trials were registered globally, with 1001 clinical trials recruiting patients for COVID-19 management.1 Despite this large number, only 30 trials have been published as peer-reviewed or preprint publications.2 Media reports and prepublications on medRxiv and bioRxiv represent the most frequent mechanism for data sharing, with wide public reach and usually with little detail. However, with inadequate details on the trials and only superficial scrutiny by the public and scientific decision makers, the consequences have had disastrous effects on other clinical trial funding, permissions, recruitment, and interpretation.
- ItemThe rise and fall of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19(American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2021) Lee, Zelyn; Rayner, Craig R.; Forrest, Jamie I.; Nachega, Jean B.; Senchaudhuri, Esha; Mills, Edward J.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has received great attention, and most notably, the enthusiasm for HCQ has been one of politicization rather than science. Laboratory studies and case series published early in the pandemic supported its efficacy. The scientific community raced to conduct observational and randomized evaluations of the drug in all stages of the disease, including prophylaxis, early treatment, and advanced disease. Yet a divisive media response affected recruitment, funding, and subsequent enthusiasm for continuing scientific investigations. Of the more than 300 HCQ trials registered, fewer than 50% report having recruited any patients, and most trials might fail to achieve any useful portions of their intended sample size. Multiple observational studies and two large randomized trials have demonstrated HCQ does not offer efficacy against COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. Prophylaxis studies and early treatment studies provided heterogeneous results and are plagued by low event rates and poor study outcome monitoring. Emerging high-quality evaluations of prophylaxis and early treatment do not support a role for HCQ in these populations. The story of HCQ for COVID-19 has followed a pattern of initial enthusiasm supported by poor quality evidence, followed by disappointment based on more rigorous evaluations. The experience of HCQ in the COVID-19 era calls for the depoliticization of science away from media glare.