Abstract
Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease stage and severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation ‘living’ guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate; 3 mild-severe; 18 mild-critical; 5 moderate-severe; 8 moderate-critical; 10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations; notably extrapolation of “lack of therapeutic benefit” shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: JAW and NJW are funded by the Wellcome Trust (ref: 220211/Z/20/Z and 093956/Z/10/C). This work is partly supported by the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through KfW, Germany (ref: 2020 62 156), and the Republic and the Canton of Geneva, International Solidarity Service, Switzerland (ref convention 2020). The BMJ open access fee was supported by research funding from the Wellcome Trust (ref: 222410/Z/21/Z). The sponsors had no role in this research work.
Funding Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: JAW and NJW are funded by the Wellcome Trust (ref: 220211/Z/20/Z and 093956/Z/10/C). This work is partly supported by the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through KfW, Germany (ref: 2020 62 156), and the Republic and the Canton of Geneva, International Solidarity Service, Switzerland (ref convention 2020). The BMJ open access fee was supported by research funding from the Wellcome Trust (ref: 222410/Z/21/Z). The sponsors had no role in this research work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
As all the data were anonymised, available in the public domain and aggregated without any personal information, ethics approval was deemed unnecessary
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All the data used in this study are publicly available and properly cited. However, more guided instruction to get access to the data for transparency and reproducibility will be provided on request
