| 1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Babich, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Ceftazidime, Carbapenems, or Piperacillin-tazobactam as Single Definitive Therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bloodstream Infection: A Multisite Retrospective Study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1537-6591. ; 70:11, s. 2270-2280
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe optimal antibiotic regimen for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia is controversial. Although β-lactam monotherapy is common, data to guide the choice between antibiotics are scarce. We aimed to compare ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive monotherapy.MethodsA multinational retrospective study (9 countries, 25 centers) including 767 hospitalized patients with P. aeruginosa bacteremia treated with β-lactam monotherapy during 2009–2015. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Univariate and multivariate, including propensity-adjusted, analyses were conducted introducing monotherapy type as an independent variable.ResultsThirty-day mortality was 37/213 (17.4%), 42/210 (20%), and 55/344 (16%) in the ceftazidime, carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively. Type of monotherapy was not significantly associated with mortality in either univariate, multivariate, or propensity-adjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–2.46, for ceftazidime; OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.67–2.51, for piperacillin-tazobactam, with carbapenems as reference in propensity adjusted multivariate analysis; 542 patients). No significant difference between antibiotics was demonstrated for clinical failure, microbiological failure, or adverse events. Isolation of P. aeruginosa with new resistance to antipseudomonal drugs was significantly more frequent with carbapenems (36/206 [17.5%]) versus ceftazidime (25/201 [12.4%]) and piperacillin-tazobactam (28/332 [8.4%] (P = .007).ConclusionsNo significant difference in mortality, clinical, and microbiological outcomes or adverse events was demonstrated between ceftazidime, carbapenems, and piperacillin-tazobactam as definitive treatment of P. aeruginosa bacteremia. Higher rates of resistant P. aeruginosa after patients were treated with carbapenems, along with the general preference for carbapenem-sparing regimens, suggests using ceftazidime or piperacillin-tazobactam for treating susceptible infection.
|
|
| 10. |
- Perez-Nadales, Elena, et al.
(författare)
-
Predictors of mortality in solid organ transplant recipients with bloodstream infections due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales : The impact of cytomegalovirus disease and lymphopenia
- 2020
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Transplantation. - : WILEY. - 1600-6135 .- 1600-6143. ; 20:6, s. 1629-1641
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Treatment of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections in solid organ transplant recipients is challenging. The objective of this study was to develop a specific score to predict mortality in solid organ transplant recipients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales bloodstream infections. A multinational, retrospective (2004-2016) cohort study (INCREMENT-SOT, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02852902) was performed. The main outcome variable was 30-day all-cause mortality. The INCREMENT-SOT-CPE score was developed using logistic regression. The global cohort included 216 patients. The final logistic regression model included the following variables: INCREMENT-CPE mortality score >= 8 (8 points), no source control (3 points), inappropriate empirical therapy (2 points), cytomegalovirus disease (7 points), lymphopenia (4 points), and the interaction between INCREMENT-CPE score >= 8 and CMV disease (minus 7 points). This score showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.88) and classified patients into 3 strata: 0-7 (low mortality), 8-11 (high mortality), and 12-17 (very-high mortality). We performed a stratified analysis of the effect of monotherapy vs combination therapy among 165 patients who received appropriate therapy. Monotherapy was associated with higher mortality only in the very-high (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.82, 95% CI 1.13-7.06, P = .03) and high (HR 9.93, 95% CI 2.08-47.40, P = .004) mortality risk strata. A score-based algorithm is provided for therapy guidance.
|
|
