Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32825816›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2020

Compassionate drug (mis)use during pandemics: lessons for COVID-19 from 2009.

Amanda M Rojek, Genevieve E Martin, Peter W Horby

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Monkeypox: how will we know if the treatments work?The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022
    Article
  7. Global challenges in preparedness and response to epidemic infectious diseases.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Guideline-directed management of COVID-19: Do's and Don'ts.The European respiratory journal · 2021
    Article
  10. Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Balancing contrasting claims.European journal of internal medicine · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amanda M RojekEpidemic Diseases Research Group Oxford (ERGO), Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, UK. amanda.rojek@mh.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3948-0756
Genevieve E MartinDepartment of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter W HorbyEpidemic Diseases Research Group Oxford (ERGO), Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, UK. peter.horby@ndm.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 106491/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 107834/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew emerging infections have no known treatment. Assessing potential drugs for safety and efficacy enables clinicians to make evidence-based treatment decisions and contributes to overall outbreak control. However, it is difficult to launch clinical trials in the unpredictable environment of an outbreak. We conducted a bibliometric systematic review for the 2009 influenza pandemic to determine the speed and quality of evidence generation for treatments. This informs approaches to high-quality evidence generation in this and future pandemics.

methodsWe searched PubMed for all clinical data (including clinical trial, observational and case series) describing treatment for patients with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and ClinicalTrials.gov for research that aimed to enrol patients with the disease.

resultsThirty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine treatment courses for patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 were detailed in 160 publications. Most were retrospective observational studies or case series. Five hundred ninety-two patients received treatment (or placebo) as participants in a registered interventional clinical trial with results publicly available. None of these registered trial results was available during the timeframe of the pandemic, and the median date of publication was 213 days after the Public Health Emergency of International Concern ended.

conclusionPatients were frequently treated for pandemic influenza with drugs not registered for this indication, but rarely under circumstances of high-quality data capture. The result was a reliance on use under compassionate circumstances, resulting in continued uncertainty regarding the potential benefits and harms of anti-viral treatment. Rapid scaling of clinical trials is critical for generating a quality evidence base during pandemics.

Indexed as

Compassionate Use TrialsInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeOff-Label UseAntiviral AgentsBetacoronavirusBibliometricsCoronavirus InfectionsCost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19Global HealthHumansInappropriate PrescribingInfluenza, HumanPandemicsPneumonia, ViralResearch DesignAntiviral AgentsClinical trialH1N1InfluenzaPandemicSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32825816
PMCPMC7441224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.