| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 2. |
- Holgersson, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Hypothermic versus Normothermic Temperature Control after Cardiac Arrest
- 2022
-
Ingår i: NEJM Evidence. - 2766-5526. ; 1:11, s. 1-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUNDThe evidence for temperature control for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest is inconclusive. Controversy exists as to whether the effects of hypothermia differ per the circumstances of the cardiac arrest or patient characteristics.METHODSAn individual patient data meta-analysis of the Targeted Temperature Management at 33°C versus 36°C after Cardiac Arrest (TTM) and Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trials was conducted. The intervention was hypothermia at 33°C and the comparator was normothermia. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included poor functional outcome (modified Rankin scale score of 4 to 6) at 6 months. Predefined subgroups based on the design variables in the original trials were tested for interaction with the intervention as follows: age (older or younger than the median), sex (female or male), initial cardiac rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), time to return of spontaneous circulation (above or below the median), and circulatory shock on admission (presence or absence).RESULTSThe primary analyses included 2800 patients, with 1403 assigned to hypothermia and 1397 to normothermia. Death occurred for 691 of 1398 participants (49.4%) in the hypothermia group and 666 of 1391 participants (47.9%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.11; P=0.41). A poor functional outcome occurred for 733 of 1350 participants (54.3%) in the hypothermia group and 718 of 1330 participants (54.0%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.08; P=0.88). Outcomes were consistent in the predefined subgroups.CONCLUSIONSHypothermia at 33°C did not decrease 6-month mortality compared with normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by Vetenskapsrådet; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT02908308 and NCT01020916.)
|
|
| 3. |
- Robba, Chiara, et al.
(författare)
-
Ventilatory settings in the initial 72 h and their association with outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients : a preplanned secondary analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (TTM2) trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:8, s. 1024-1038
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The optimal ventilatory settings in patients after cardiac arrest and their association with outcome remain unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the ventilatory settings applied in the first 72 h of mechanical ventilation in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and their association with 6-month outcomes. Methods: Preplanned sub-analysis of the Target Temperature Management-2 trial. Clinical outcomes were mortality and functional status (assessed by the Modified Rankin Scale) 6 months after randomization. Results: A total of 1848 patients were included (mean age 64 [Standard Deviation, SD = 14] years). At 6 months, 950 (51%) patients were alive and 898 (49%) were dead. Median tidal volume (VT) was 7 (Interquartile range, IQR = 6.2–8.5) mL per Predicted Body Weight (PBW), positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 7 (IQR = 5–9) cmH20, plateau pressure was 20 cmH20 (IQR = 17–23), driving pressure was 12 cmH20 (IQR = 10–15), mechanical power 16.2 J/min (IQR = 12.1–21.8), ventilatory ratio was 1.27 (IQR = 1.04–1.6), and respiratory rate was 17 breaths/minute (IQR = 14–20). Median partial pressure of oxygen was 87 mmHg (IQR = 75–105), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide was 40.5 mmHg (IQR = 36–45.7). Respiratory rate, driving pressure, and mechanical power were independently associated with 6-month mortality (omnibus p-values for their non-linear trajectories: p < 0.0001, p = 0.026, and p = 0.029, respectively). Respiratory rate and driving pressure were also independently associated with poor neurological outcome (odds ratio, OR = 1.035, 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.003–1.068, p = 0.030, and OR = 1.005, 95% CI = 1.001–1.036, p = 0.048). A composite formula calculated as [(4*driving pressure) + respiratory rate] was independently associated with mortality and poor neurological outcome. Conclusions: Protective ventilation strategies are commonly applied in patients after cardiac arrest. Ventilator settings in the first 72 h after hospital admission, in particular driving pressure and respiratory rate, may influence 6-month outcomes.
|
|
