The evidence base for emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments: A rapid review.
COVID‐19
clinical research
emergency use authorization
Journal
Health science reports
ISSN: 2398-8835
Titre abrégé: Health Sci Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101728855
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
24
08
2022
revised:
07
12
2022
accepted:
27
12
2022
entrez:
16
1
2023
pubmed:
17
1
2023
medline:
17
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During the COVID-19 pandemic, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments with promising data. Eight treatments were issued EUAs by May 31, 2021; one of these was approved (Remdesivir for certain populations) and two were revoked (chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine and bamlanivimab) by September 30, 2021. The aim of this study is to find out what evidence the EUAs were based on and how many studies were published while they remained active (up to September 30, 2021). A review of published clinical studies for the 6 months before each EUA was issued, and the time after (until September 30, 2021, or until revoked). PubMed and the identified systematic reviews were the sources for identifying published literature. The number of clinical studies published pre-EUA varied from a single case study (for chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine) to numerous studies of multiple types (for convalescent plasma). Four treatments had a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) as evidence (bamlanivimab monotherapy, REGN-COV, bamlanivimab + etesevimab, sotrovimab) and two also had other study types (remdesivir and baricitinib). The number of clinical studies published post-EUA (for those active on September 30, 2021) was widely varied. Eighteen RCTs were published for Convalescent plasma, while Remdesivir had eight. Baricitinib, REGN-COV, and bamlanivimab + etesevimab all had one, but none were published for sotrovimab. The number of trials for treatments with EUAs was limited in all cases before the EUA was issued, and in most cases for those with EUAs ongoing at the end of September 2021. The presence of EUAs may discourage participation in relevant clinical trials, which delays the widespread implementation of evidenced-based therapies. Large, robust RCTs should be completed, such as the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom, to quickly find the answers desperately required during a pandemic.
Sections du résumé
Background and Aims
UNASSIGNED
During the COVID-19 pandemic, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments with promising data. Eight treatments were issued EUAs by May 31, 2021; one of these was approved (Remdesivir for certain populations) and two were revoked (chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine and bamlanivimab) by September 30, 2021. The aim of this study is to find out what evidence the EUAs were based on and how many studies were published while they remained active (up to September 30, 2021).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A review of published clinical studies for the 6 months before each EUA was issued, and the time after (until September 30, 2021, or until revoked). PubMed and the identified systematic reviews were the sources for identifying published literature.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The number of clinical studies published pre-EUA varied from a single case study (for chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine) to numerous studies of multiple types (for convalescent plasma). Four treatments had a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) as evidence (bamlanivimab monotherapy, REGN-COV, bamlanivimab + etesevimab, sotrovimab) and two also had other study types (remdesivir and baricitinib). The number of clinical studies published post-EUA (for those active on September 30, 2021) was widely varied. Eighteen RCTs were published for Convalescent plasma, while Remdesivir had eight. Baricitinib, REGN-COV, and bamlanivimab + etesevimab all had one, but none were published for sotrovimab.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The number of trials for treatments with EUAs was limited in all cases before the EUA was issued, and in most cases for those with EUAs ongoing at the end of September 2021. The presence of EUAs may discourage participation in relevant clinical trials, which delays the widespread implementation of evidenced-based therapies. Large, robust RCTs should be completed, such as the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom, to quickly find the answers desperately required during a pandemic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36644312
doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1051
pii: HSR21051
pmc: PMC9831114
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1051Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
MAbs. 2021 Jan-Dec;13(1):1919285
pubmed: 34074219
BMJ. 2020 Sep 4;370:m3379
pubmed: 32887691
Mymensingh Med J. 2020 Apr;29(2):481-487
pubmed: 32506110
Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2049-2059
pubmed: 34000257
Hippokratia. 2010 Dec;14(Suppl 1):29-37
pubmed: 21487488
Lancet Respir Med. 2022 Apr;10(4):327-336
pubmed: 35123660
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2030-2040
pubmed: 33031652
Nat Med. 2021 Nov;27(11):2012-2024
pubmed: 34504336
Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2021 Jul;37(3):347-365
pubmed: 33746378
N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 7;385(15):1382-1392
pubmed: 34260849
Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 May;96(5):1262-1275
pubmed: 33958057
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;98:334-346
pubmed: 32634589
Evid Based Med. 2016 Aug;21(4):125-7
pubmed: 27339128
Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-1578
pubmed: 32423584
JAMA. 2021 Mar 23;325(12):1185-1195
pubmed: 33635310
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Aug;109:114-117
pubmed: 34157385
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Apr 09;8:624924
pubmed: 33898477
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 20;5:CD013600
pubmed: 34013969
BMJ. 2020 Apr 1;369:m1335
pubmed: 32238355
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2598-2600
pubmed: 33264539
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 21;384(3):238-251
pubmed: 33332778
BMJ. 2020 Sep 15;370:m3516
pubmed: 32933945