All patients admitted to ICU (5), requiring intubation (2), or who died (1) were in the placebo group.
No concerning safety signals
7/ Another very positive study.
How confident should we be in the conclusions?
Let’s look for sources of chance and bias that could threaten them.
First, the study was stopped for efficacy.
Did this make a positive result more likely by chance?
8/ No - it makes a negative result more likely:
Usually, enrolling fewer people than planned = ↓ power
However, these data suggest a large effect of SOT.
As a result, fewer people than expected were needed to find it.
Here, this increases my confidence in the results.
9/ Another source of confidence in these results:
The secondary outcomes suggest SOT = ↓ emergency department visits, disease progression, ICU admission, and death.
Though the numbers are small, the pattern is in-line with what we expect based on the mechanism.
10/ Other positives:
✅Because the binding site of SOT is highly conserved, it should work against future variants
✅No safety signals, no drug interactions
✅Long half-life (49 days!) = good option for immunosuppressed patients who have received B-cell depleting therapies
11/ Two important things were omitted:
Patients’ autologous antibody status
&
The dominant circulating variant.
Are either of these sources of chance or bias that could have influenced the results?
Let’s first examine antibody positivity.
12/ Seropositivity would indicate one of two things:
Prior infection
Or
Immune response to the current infection.
This would have been a useful subgroup analysis to infer how these data might apply to patients with some immunity from prior infection or vaccination.
13/ It does not appear that patients with prior infection were excluded (only patients with prior hospitalization for COVID were excluded).
How many people could this be? Hard to say. 20% of patients had prior infection in the MOVe-OUT trial:
Then, come back, and please comment, add what I have missed, and correct me where I am wrong.
Critical appraisal is a group effort.
3/ First, let’s agree on what was tested:
The hypothesis was that the recommendation to wear masks (added to other public health measures) would reduce the incidence of COVID19 among wearers from 2% to 1% over 1 month, in a setting where mask use was uncommon (Denmark).
Based on my very informal poll, here’s how twitter respondents indicated they are using dex in COVID19 patients as of mid-July 2020:
3/ Background: COVID19 can induce a deadly hyper-inflammatory host response.
Prior observational data (↓quality, ↑risk of confounding by indication) suggested ↑mortality from steroids in influenza: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30798570/
The role of steroids in treating COVID19 is unknown.
Question: What are the test characteristics of acute olfactory loss (hyposmia or anosmia for <14d) for Dx of COVID19, using oropharyngeal PCR as the gold standard?
Design: single-center cross-sectional study via chart review (retrospective)