Insights from a double-blind, randomized, direct-to-participant intervention trial for Long COVID
Vogel, J. M.; Ter Meer, J.; Foster-Bonds, R.; Duff, M. P.; Goosen, A.; Kurakova, A.; Dinh-Luong, E.; Miyasaki, L.; Topol, S.; Sturm, C.; Nowak, C.; Tate, A.; Redd, J.; Shepard, C.; Kheterpal, V.; Steinhubl, S. R.; Topol, E. J.
Show abstract
Background. Long COVID affects an estimated 400 million people worldwide, and is associated with low quality of life. Nearly all completed Long COVID clinical trials reported no benefit, and most required participants to travel to study sites. This requirement systematically excludes severely affected patients. Because there are numerous candidate therapeutics with established safety profiles and regulatory approvals for other indications, scaled, efficient evaluation of therapeutics is needed. Methods. We designed and are conducting a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase two trial of tirzepatide for Long COVID fatigue, using an entirely remote infrastructure. Design elements included electronic consent, identity and diagnosis verification through document upload, cold-chain delivery of an injectable study drug through a central pharmacy, shared decision-making for dose titration, repeated at-home capillary blood collection in a biospecimen subcohort, weekly participant touch points through study application, wrist-worn wearable monitoring, and clinical support. The trial is operating under FDA Investigational New Drug authorization. Results. This trial enrolled 1,058 participants in 73 days, at least double the rate of any other Long COVID trial. Mean baseline metrics include mean Fatigue Severity Scale of 59.3 (standard deviation [SD] 4.9), daily step count of 3,611 (SD 2,706, general population reference mean 7,731), EQ-5D-5L of 0.6 (SD 0.2), and FUNCAP27 4.0 (SD 1.0), which was a more severely affected population than other clinical trials that collected comparable data. Study processes are working as designed. Participants use existing advocacy and support channels to gather and communicate. Conclusions. A direct-to-participant, siteless infrastructure can support a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of an injectable drug at scale, accelerate accrual, and reach severely affected participants who are routinely excluded by site-based designs. Modernizing drug distribution and regulatory pathways is needed to realize the full potential of decentralized infrastructure for drug repurposing clinical trials.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 93%
- Design and implementation of the multi-arm, multi-stage Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform master protocol: An Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative 93%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 91%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 91%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 94%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 92%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The IGNITE Trial: Participant Recruitment Lessons Prior to SARS-CoV-2 93%
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 90%
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.