Randomized trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 as of August 2021: a meta-epidemiological analysis

Introduction

Numerous non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were taken worldwide to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ NPIs are considered crucial to prevent infections, in particular for non-vaccinated populations.² Such interventions during COVID-19 include drastic social distancing and lockdown measures impacting billions of people. The need for randomized evidence on NPIs has been highlighted on numerous occasions ^3-5. However, no randomized trials assessing NPIs were initiated early in the pandemic ⁶ and it is likely their number have remained sparse. ^7-9 We aimed to provide a systematic overview of the research agenda of randomized trials assessing NPIs to prevent COVID-19.

Methods

A meta-epidemiological analysis was performed to collect the current trials on NPIs and to summarize their status and characteristics. We did not register this study or published a specific study protocol. We adapted PRISMA 2020 to provide a comprehensive study report, where applicable.¹⁰

Results

We identified 41 eligible randomized trials (Figure; Table). As of August 2021, 11 trials were completed (26.8%) including 7 with published results, 17 ongoing (41.5%), 11 not yet recruiting (26.8%), and 2 terminated early or withdrawn (5.9%). Most came from the United States (n=11, 26.8%), United Kingdom (n=4, 9.8%), and France (n=4, 9.8%). Of note, none of the completed and terminated trials had made their results available on the registries.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure.

Retrieval and trial selection process

The types of NPIs were diverse. Of the 41 trials, 11 trials (26.8%) assessed protective equipment such as various masks, face shields or goggles; 9 trials (22.0%) assessed diverse COVID-19-related information and education programs (e.g., text messages, newsfeeds, personalized health education, Facebook advertisements, nurse-led home visits); 5 trials (12.2%) assessed the impact of attending a musical mass event/concert under specific safety measures; 5 trials (12.2%) assessed diverse testing and screening strategies in nursing homes, schools, universities, and the emergency department; 5 trials (12.2%) assessed multicomponent behavioral interventions on hygiene management in the community. The other 6 trials assessed access to a fitness center, school opening, special housing of homeless individuals, direct income support for individuals with COVID-19-related financial disruptions, yoga sessions for health care professionals, and COVID-19-related symptom tracking in outpatients with cancer.

The trials planned to recruit a median of 1,700 participants (IQR, 588 to 9,500, range 30 to 35,256,399) with a median planned duration of 8 months (IQR, 3 to 14, range 1 to 24). The largest trial assessed the impact of Facebook advertisements to prevent traveling and family reunions during Thanksgiving and Christmas with >35 million participants ¹², the shortest trial assessed the audience infection rate 8 days after an indoor music event.¹³ A typical randomized trial on NPIs randomly allocated individuals (n=23, 56.1%), rather than clusters (n=18, 43.9%), to two comparison groups (n=38, 92.7%) and assessed a COVID-19-related primary outcome (n=33, 80.5%) that was laboratory-confirmed (n=33, 80.5%).

Discussion

Worldwide, 41 randomized trials assessing NPIs have been initiated with published results available to inform policy decisions for only 7 of them. This is a tiny fraction of more than 4000 randomized trials on COVID-19 registered globally as of August 2021.¹¹ Given the unprecedented public health impact worldwide and the wide debates about benefits and harms of NPIs, this number seems disproportionate in light of other interventions that have been the focus of much more evaluation with randomized trials. For example, over 300 randomized trials included the highly debated hydroxychloroquine in their intervention arm¹⁴ which has been found to be associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. ¹⁵

The list of available treatments for COVID-19 is limited ^16,17 and with vaccination rates plateauing in many countries ¹⁸, NPIs and their effectiveness will remain a central debate. Our analysis clearly indicates that randomized trials are generally feasible to assess the benefits and harms of NPIs during a pandemic situation, in a very short time using the most reliable method to provide reliable evidence for optimal health policy decision making. The World Health Organization (WHO) is committed to improving the evidence base on effectiveness of public health and social measures¹⁹, and this overview may inform further developments in this important area of evidence generation.

This study is limited as our sample relies on accurate trial registration and reporting. We cannot exclude that some NPI randomized trials might have been missed because they were not registered, outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2-infections were incorrectly or not reported in the registries, or because of our single-reviewer screening approach. However, it is unlikely that we have been unaware of pertinent results of further NPI trials, given their substantial impact on current debates and scarcity of the evidence.

Conclusions

Overall, during the first 18 months of the pandemic, the worldwide clinical research agenda failed to provide urgently needed evidence determining best strategies to prevent COVID-19 in schools, workplaces, nursing homes and other settings substantially affected. A long-term research agenda including behavioral, environmental, social, and systems level interventions is urgently needed to guide policies and practices in the current and future public health emergencies.