10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical characterization of Lassa fever: A systematic review of clinical reports and research to inform clinical trial design

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Research is urgently needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality of Lassa fever (LF), including clinical trials to test new therapies and to verify the efficacy and safety of the only current treatment recommendation, ribavirin, which has a weak clinical evidence base. To help establish a basis for the development of an adaptable, standardised clinical trial methodology, we conducted a systematic review to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of LF and describe how LF has historically been defined and assessed in the scientific literature.

          Methodology

          Primary clinical studies and reports of patients with suspected and confirmed diagnosis of LF published in the peer-reviewed literature before 15 April 2021 were included. Publications were selected following a two-stage screening of abstracts, then full-texts, by two independent reviewers at each stage. Data were extracted, verified, and summarised using descriptive statistics.

          Results

          147 publications were included, primarily case reports (36%), case series (28%), and cohort studies (20%); only 2 quasi-randomised studies (1%) were found. Data are mostly from Nigeria (52% of individuals, 41% of publications) and Sierra Leone (42% of individuals, 31% of publications).

          The results corroborate the World Health Organisation characterisation of LF presentation. However, a broader spectrum of presenting symptoms is evident, such as gastrointestinal illness and other nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders that are not commonly included as indicators of LF.

          The overall case fatality ratio was 30% in laboratory-confirmed cases (1896/6373 reported in 109 publications).

          Conclusion

          Systematic review is an important tool in the clinical characterisation of diseases with limited publications. The results herein provide a more complete understanding of the spectrum of disease which is relevant to clinical trial design. This review demonstrates the need for coordination across the LF research community to generate harmonised research methods that can contribute to building a strong evidence base for new treatments and foster confidence in their integration into clinical care.

          Author summary

          Clinical research in difficult-to-study infectious diseases such as Lassa fever is challenging. Only one controlled clinical trial has been conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of therapeutic interventions for Lassa fever (LF). Further research to test new and repurposed therapies is needed and should be supported by a methodological framework in which clinical trials can be consistently conducted for LF. To establish a basis for a standardised clinical trial methodology, we carried out a systematic review to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of LF and describe how LF has historically been defined and assessed in the scientific literature. Our data corroborates the current characterisation of LF, and also highlights a broader range of other general symptoms that characterise the onset of LF, such as gastrointestinal illness and other nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders that are not commonly included as indicators of LF. These findings, however, should be tempered by the lack of systematic assessment and reporting of presenting signs and symptoms, their evolution following treatment, and outcomes at discharge in the historic literature. It is therefore evident that a standardised set of data variables and outcome measures should be developed and incorporated into future trials and reported to accelerate collective knowledge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references177

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

              Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Supervision
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Negl Trop Dis
                PLoS Negl Trop Dis
                plos
                PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1935-2727
                1935-2735
                21 September 2021
                September 2021
                : 15
                : 9
                : e0009788
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Institute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ] Ola During Children’s Hospital, Freetown, Sierra Leone
                [4 ] Department of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                University of Geneva Hospitals, SWITZERLAND
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-1960
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-8380
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3131-3742
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5252-9676
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6957-2977
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1426-3680
                Article
                PNTD-D-21-00823
                10.1371/journal.pntd.0009788
                8486098
                34547033
                33ea343a-5395-4eaf-b653-2fe5bea2e89d
                © 2021 Merson et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 3 June 2021
                : 3 September 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 6, Pages: 27
                Funding
                Funded by: UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome
                Award ID: 215091/Z/18/Z
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000865, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Award ID: OPP1209135
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: African coaLition for Epidemic Research, Response and Training (ALERRT)
                Award ID: RIA2016E-1612
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] (PO, JB) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135] (PO, JB). This project is part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union [RIA2016E-1612 - African coaLition for Epidemic Research, Response and Training (ALERRT)] (LM, SJ). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Tropical Diseases
                Neglected Tropical Diseases
                Lassa Fever
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Lassa Fever
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Hemorrhage
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Vascular Medicine
                Hemorrhage
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Safety Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Safety Studies
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Safety Studies
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Immunologic Techniques
                Immunoassays
                Enzyme-Linked Immunoassays
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Custom metadata
                vor-update-to-uncorrected-proof
                2021-10-01
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article