Abstract
Objective The SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy trials were launched to facilitate the rapid worldwide comparison of the efficacy and safety of treatments against COVID-19. This study aimed to review the trial designs of SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy and their feasibility to generate high-quality evidence.
Method A systematic search of the European Clinical trial registry, the U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was conducted on May 10th, 2020 to identify the study details of the SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy trials. A supplementary search of PubMed, WHO’s website, French authorities’ websites, and Google search engine was conducted. A critical review was performed on the findings.
Results The DisCoVeRy trial design was detailed consistently in both the European and the US clinical rial registries. SOLIDARITY was registered on ICTRP, with country-specific information reported on country-level registry platforms. The DisCoVeRy trial’s design appears to be ideal from the methodological perspective. Both trials appear difficult to implement, impractical, and disconnected from the pandemic reality. This is consistent with the apparent failure of the trials to deliver conclusions before the end of the pandemic.
Conclusion Both trials constitute an interesting initiative yet may lack the resources to support a high-quality implementation. The authors call for a pandemic task force, with various experts on the front-line of COVID-19, to inform policy-makers to make effective decisions that may not be based on traditional, methodological state-of-the-art evidence, but rather pragmatic and revisable decisions reflecting emerging evidence for the benefit of patients and society.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
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:
No require.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
A systematic search of the European Clinical trial registry, the U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in WHO was conducted on May 10th, 2020 to identify the study designs of the SOLIDARITY and DisCoVeRy trials. With regard to the SOLIDARITY study, the trials reported at national level in clinical trial registries were also identified. A supplementary search of PubMed, the website of WHO and French authorities including MESRI, MSS and Inserm, and Google search engine using the keywords of SOLIDARITY trial and DisCoVeRy trial was conducted to identify additional information on the progress of the two trials.