How Informative were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov

Abstract

Background Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, commentators warned that some COVID trials were inadequately conceived, designed and reported. Here, we retrospectively assess the prevalence of informative COVID trials launched in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Methods We created a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 treatment and prevention efficacy trials that were initiated from 2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30 using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. We evaluated trials on 3 criteria of informativeness: potential redundancy, design quality and feasibility of patient-participant recruitment. The study protocol was prospectively registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/fp726/). Results We included 500 trials in our cohort, 58% of which were Phase 2 and 84.8% were directed towards the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Close to one third of trials met all three criteria and were deemed informative (29.0% (95% Confidence Interval 23.7-36.9)). The proportion of potentially redundant trials in our cohort was 4.1%. Over half of the trials in our cohort (56.2%) did not meet our criteria for high quality trial design. The proportion of trials with infeasible patient-participant recruitment was 22.6%. Conclusions Less than one third of COVID-19 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during the first six months met all three criteria for informativeness. Shortcomings in trial design, recruitment feasibility and redundancy reflect longstanding weaknesses in the clinical research enterprise that were likely amplified by the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.