Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36586664›Full record

ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2023

Relationship between the inclusion/exclusion criteria and sample size in randomized controlled trials for SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitors.

Daiki Tatematsu, Marwa Akao, Hyeongki Park, Shingo Iwami, Keisuke Ejima, Shoya Iwanami

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daiki TatematsuDivision of Biological Science, School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Marwa AkaoDivision of Biological Science, School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Hyeongki Parkinterdisciplinary Biology Laboratory (iBLab), Division of Biological Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Shingo Iwamiinterdisciplinary Biology Laboratory (iBLab), Division of Biological Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan; Institute of Mathematics for Industry, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan; Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Biology (ASHBi), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; NEXT-Ganken Program, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research (JFCR), Tokyo, Japan; Science Groove Inc., Fukuoka, Japan.
Keisuke EjimaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Shoya Iwanamiinterdisciplinary Biology Laboratory (iBLab), Division of Biological Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. Electronic address: iwanami.iblab@bio.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
Nagoya University · JPIndiana University Bloomington · USKyushu University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that has been ongoing since 2019 is still ongoing and how to control it is one of the international issues to be addressed. Antiviral drugs that reduce the viral load in terms of reducing the risk of secondary infection are important. For the general control of emerging infectious diseases, establishing an efficient method to evaluate candidate therapeutic agents will lead to a rapid response. We evaluated clinical trial designs for viral entry inhibitors that have the potential to be effective pre-exposure prophylactic drugs in addition to reducing viral load after infection. We used a previously developed simulation of clinical trials based on a mathematical model of within-host viral infection dynamics to evaluate sample sizes in clinical trials of viral entry inhibitors against COVID-19. We assumed four measures as outcomes, namely change in log10-transformed viral load from symptom onset, PCR positive ratio, log10-transformed viral load, and cumulative viral load, and then sample sizes were calculated for drugs with 99 % and 95 % antiviral efficacy. Consistent with previous results, we found that sample sizes could be dramatically reduced for all outcomes used in an analysis by adopting inclusion/exclusion criteria such that only patients in the early post-infection period would be included in a clinical trial. A comparison of sample sizes across outcomes demonstrated an optimal measurement schedule associated with the nature of the outcome measured for the evaluation of drug efficacy. In particular, the sample sizes calculated from the change in viral load and from viral load tended to be small when measurements were taken at earlier time points after treatment initiation. For the cumulative viral load, the sample size was lower than that from the other outcomes when the stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria to include patients whose time since onset is earlier than 2 days was used. We concluded that the design of efficient clinical trials should consider the inclusion/exclusion criteria and measurement schedules, as well as outcome selection based on sample size, personnel and budget needed to conduct the trial, and the importance of the outcome regarding the medical and societal requirements. This study provides insights into clinical trial design for a variety of situations, especially addressing infectious disease prevalence and feasible trial sizes. This manuscript was submitted as part of a theme issue on "Modelling COVID-19 and Preparedness for Future Pandemics".

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antiviral AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample SizeTreatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsClinical trialCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2Virus dynamics

Identifiers

PMID36586664
PMCPMC9794526
OpenAlexW4313419761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.