| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(author)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
In: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(author)
-
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2021
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I-2=0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with increased mortality, and there was no benefit from chloroquine.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial
- 2022
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:1, s. 45-55
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. Methods We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. Results The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. Conclusion We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.
|
|
| 4. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis
- 2021
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:5, s. 702-710
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. Discussion This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
|
|
| 5. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia
- 2022
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48, s. 580-589
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. Methods We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. Results We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.
|
|
| 6. |
- Munch, Marie W., et al.
(author)
-
Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial
- 2021
-
In: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 326:18, s. 1807-1817
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Question What is the effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of dexamethasone on the number of days alive without life support at 28 days in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia? Findings In this randomized trial that included 1000 patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, treatment with 12 mg/d of dexamethasone resulted in 22.0 days alive without life support at 28 days compared with 20.5 days in those receiving 6 mg/d of dexamethasone. This difference was not statistically significant. Meaning Compared with 6 mg of dexamethasone, 12 mg of dexamethasone did not statistically significantly reduce the number of days alive without life support at 28 days. This multicenter randomized clinical trial compares the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. IMPORTANCE A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and >= 1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTS Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.
|
|
| 7. |
- Munch, Marie Warrer, et al.
(author)
-
Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial : Protocol and statistical analysis plan
- 2021
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:6, s. 834-845
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. Methods The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. Discussion The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.
|
|
| 8. |
- Mikaeloff, Flora, et al.
(author)
-
Network-based multi-omics integration reveals metabolic at-risk profile within treated HIV-infection
- 2023
-
In: eLIFE. - : eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd. - 2050-084X. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Multiomics technologies improve the biological understanding of health status in people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy (PWH). Still, a systematic and in-depth characterization of metabolic risk profile during successful long-term treatment is lacking. Here, we used multi-omics (plasma lipidomic, metabolomic, and fecal 16 S microbiome) data-driven stratification and characterization to identify the metabolic at-risk profile within PWH. Through network analysis and similarity network fusion (SNF), we identified three groups of PWH (SNF-1-3): healthy (HC)-like (SNF-1), mild at-risk (SNF-3), and severe at-risk (SNF-2). The PWH in the SNF-2 (45%) had a severe at-risk metabolic profile with increased visceral adipose tissue, BMI, higher incidence of metabolic syndrome (MetS), and increased di- and triglycerides despite having higher CD4(+) T-cell counts than the other two clusters. However, the HC-like and the severe at-risk group had a similar metabolic profile differing from HIV-negative controls (HNC), with dysregulation of amino acid metabolism. At the microbiome profile, the HC-like group had a lower alpha-diversity, a lower proportion of men having sex with men (MSM) and was enriched in Bacteroides. In contrast, in at-risk groups, there was an increase in Prevotella, with a high proportion of MSM, which could potentially lead to higher systemic inflammation and increased cardiometabolic risk profile. The multi-omics integrative analysis also revealed a complex microbial interplay of the microbiome-associated metabolites in PWH. Those severely at-risk clusters may benefit from personalized medicine and lifestyle intervention to improve their dysregulated metabolic traits, aiming to achieve healthier aging.
|
|
| 9. |
- Mkoma, George Frederick, et al.
(author)
-
Risk of long COVID and associated symptoms after acute SARS-COV-2 infection in ethnic minorities : a nationwide register-linked cohort study in Denmark
- 2024
-
In: PLoS Medicine. - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 21:2, s. e1004280-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Ethnic minorities living in high-income countries have been disproportionately affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in terms of infection rates, hospitalisations, and deaths; however, less is known about long COVID in these populations. Our aim was to examine the risk of long COVID and associated symptoms among ethnic minorities.Methods and findings: We used nationwide register-based cohort data on individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 aged ≥18 years (n = 2,287,175) between January 2020 and August 2022 in Denmark. We calculated the risk of long COVID diagnosis and long COVID symptoms among ethnic minorities compared with native Danes using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regression, respectively.Among individuals who were first time diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period, 39,876 (1.7%) were hospitalised and 2,247,299 (98.3%) were nonhospitalised individuals. Of the diagnosed COVID-19 cases, 1,952,021 (85.3%) were native Danes and 335,154 (14.7%) were ethnic minorities. After adjustment for age, sex, civil status, education, family income, and Charlson comorbidity index, ethnic minorities from North Africa (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.12,1.79], p = 0.003), Middle East (aHR 1.38, 95% CI [1.24,1.55], p < 0.001), Eastern Europe (aHR 1.35, 95% CI [1.22,1.49], p < 0.001), and Asia (aHR 1.23, 95% CI [1.09,1.40], p = 0.001) had significantly greater risk of long COVID diagnosis than native Danes. In the analysis by largest countries of origin, the greater risks of long COVID diagnosis were found in people of Iraqi origin (aHR 1.56, 95% CI [1.30,1.88], p < 0.001), people of Turkish origin (aHR 1.42, 95% CI [1.24,1.63], p < 0.001), and people of Somali origin (aHR 1.42, 95% CI [1.07,1.91], p = 0.016). A significant factor associated with an increased risk of long COVID diagnosis was COVID-19 hospitalisation. The risk of long COVID diagnosis among ethnic minorities was more pronounced between January 2020 and June 2021. Furthermore, the odds of reporting cardiopulmonary symptoms (including dyspnoea, cough, and chest pain) and any long COVID symptoms were higher among people of North African, Middle Eastern, Eastern European, and Asian origins than among native Danes in both unadjusted and adjusted models. Despite including the nationwide sample of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19, the precision of our estimates on long COVID was limited to the sample of patients with symptoms who had contacted the hospital.Conclusions: Belonging to an ethnic minority group was significantly associated with an increased risk of long COVID, indicating the need to better understand long COVID drivers and address care and treatment strategies in these populations.
|
|
