| 1. |
- 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.)
|
|
| 2. |
- Jakobsen, Janus Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a statistical analysis plan.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To date, targeted temperature management (TTM) is the only neuroprotective intervention after resuscitation from cardiac arrest that is recommended by guidelines. The evidence on the effects of TTM is unclear.The Targeted Hypothermia Versus Targeted Normothermia After Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial is an international, multicentre, parallel group, investigator-initiated, randomised, superiority trial in which TTM with a target temperature of 33°C after cardiac arrest will be compared with a strategy to maintain normothermia and active treatment of fever (≥37.8°C). Prognosticators, outcome assessors, the steering group, the trial coordinating team, and trial statisticians will be blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 180days after randomisation. We estimate a 55% mortality in the targeted normothermia group. To detect an absolute risk reduction of 7.5% with an alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, 1900 participants will be enrolled. The secondary neurological outcome will be poor functional outcome (modified Rankin scale 4-6) at 180days after cardiac arrest. In this paper, a detailed statistical analysis plan is presented, including a comprehensive description of the statistical analyses, handling of missing data, and assessments of underlying statistical assumptions. Final analyses will be conducted independently by two qualified statisticians following the present plan.This SAP, which was prepared before completion of enrolment, should increase the validity of the TTM trial by mitigation of analysis-bias.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bjerre, Mette, et al.
(författare)
-
Serum osteoprotegerin as a long-term predictor for patients with stable coronary artery disease and its association with diabetes and statin treatment : A CLARICOR trial 10-year follow-up substudy
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Atherosclerosis. - : Elsevier BV. - 0021-9150 .- 1879-1484. ; 301, s. 8-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Elevated circulating levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG) are known to add to the prediction of cardiovascular mortality. Our objective was to clarify the long-term risk associated with serum OPG and the possible influence of diabetes and statins on OPG levels in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS: We assessed the placebo-treated group (n = 1998) from the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), a cohort with stable CAD. At entry, 15% of the participants had diabetes and 41% received statins. Serum OPG levels were measured in blood drawn at randomization. Participants were followed through public registers for 10 years.RESULTS: OPG levels correlated positively with diabetes status, age, CRP and female sex, but negatively with the use of statins. CAD participants with diabetes had significantly elevated serum OPG levels compared to participants without diabetes, p < 0.0001. The participants without diabetes treated with statins presented with significantly lower serum OPG levels than the corresponding non-statin-users (p < 0.0001). However, statin use showed no association with OPG levels in the participants with diabetes. High OPG levels at entry showed long-term associations with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events (hazard ratio associated with factor 10 OPG increase 15.9 (95% CI 11.0-22.9) and 6.38 (4.60-8.90), p = 0.0001, even after adjustment for standard predictors (3.16 (1.90-5.25) and 2.29 (1.53-3.44), p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONS: Circulating OPG holds long-term independent predictive ability for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in CAD participants. OPG levels were associated with diabetes, age, and female sex and statin treatment was associated with lower OPG levels in the absence of diabetes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Carlsson, Axel C, et al.
(författare)
-
10-Year Associations between Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptors 1 and 2 and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Stable Coronary Heart Disease : A CLARICOR (Effect of Clarithromycin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease) Trial Substudy.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980 .- 2047-9980. ; 7:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the associations and predictive powers between the soluble receptors for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (TNFR1 and TNFR2) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary heart disease.METHODS AND RESULTS: CLARICOR (Effect of Clarithromycin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease) is a randomized clinical trial comparing clarithromycin with placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Patients were followed up for 10 years; discovery sample, those assigned placebo (1204 events in n=1998); and replication sample, those assigned clarithromycin (1220 events in n=1979). We used Cox regression adjusted for C-reactive protein level, established cardiovascular risk factors, kidney function, and cardiovascular drugs. After adjustments, higher serum levels of TNFR1 and TNFR2 were associated with the composite outcome in the discovery sample (hazard ratio per SD increase, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.22; P=0.001 for TNFR1; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.24; P<0.001 for TNFR2). The associations were similar in the replication sample. The associations with the composite outcome were mainly driven by acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. The addition of TNFR1 and TNFR2 to established cardiovascular risk factors improved prediction only modestly (<1%).CONCLUSIONS: Increased concentrations of circulating TNFR1 and TNFR2 were associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Yet, the utility of measuring TNFR1 and TNFR2 to improve risk prediction in these patients appears limited.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00121550.
|
|
| 5. |
- Christensen, Christian Kolle, et al.
(författare)
-
Beam damage in operando X-ray diffraction studies of Li-ion batteries
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Synchrotron Radiation. - 0909-0495. ; 30:Pt 3, s. 561-570
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Operando powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) is a widely employed method for the investigation of structural evolution and phase transitions in electrodes for rechargeable batteries. Due to the advantages of high brilliance and high X-ray energies, the experiments are often carried out at synchrotron facilities. It is known that the X-ray exposure can cause beam damage in the battery cell, resulting in hindrance of the electrochemical reaction. This study investigates the extent of X-ray beam damage during operando PXRD synchrotron experiments on battery materials with varying X-ray energies, amount of X-ray exposure and battery cell chemistries. Battery cells were exposed to 15, 25 or 35 keV X-rays (with varying dose) during charge or discharge in a battery test cell specially designed for operando experiments. The observed beam damage was probed by μPXRD mapping of the electrodes recovered from the operando battery cell after charge/discharge. The investigation reveals that the beam damage depends strongly on both the X-ray energy and the amount of exposure, and that it also depends strongly on the cell chemistry, i.e. the chemical composition of the electrode.
|
|
| 6. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 17:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. Conclusions Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.
|
|
| 7. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Systematic Reviews. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2046-4053. ; 9:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.
|
|
| 8. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLoS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:3 March
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. Methods and findings We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. Conclusions No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that
|
|
| 9. |
- Jørgensen, Caroline Kamp, et al.
(författare)
-
Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME) : A Consortium Initiative for Improving Methodology in Randomised Clinical Trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Services Insights. - 1178-6329. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.
|
|
| 10. |
- Lilja, Gisela, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for outcome reporting and follow-up in the Targeted Hypothermia versus Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest trial (TTM2)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 150, s. 104-112
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: The TTM2-trial is a multi-centre randomised clinical trial where targeted temperature management (TTM) at 33 °C will be compared with normothermia and early treatment of fever (≥37.8 °C) after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA). This paper presents the design and rationale of the TTM2-trial follow-up, where information on secondary and exploratory outcomes will be collected. We also present the explorative outcome analyses which will focus on neurocognitive function and societal participation in OHCA-survivors. Methods: Blinded outcome-assessors will perform follow-up at 30-days after the OHCA with a telephone interview, including the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE). Face-to-face meetings will be performed at 6 and 24-months, and include reports on outcome from several sources of information: clinician-reported: mRS, GOSE; patient-reported: EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level responses version (EQ-5D-5L), Life satisfaction, Two Simple Questions; observer-reported: Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly-Cardiac Arrest version (IQCODE-CA) and neurocognitive performance measures: Montreal Cognitive Assessment, (MoCA), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Exploratory analyses will be performed with an emphasis on brain injury in the survivors, where the two intervention groups will be compared for potential differences in neuro-cognitive function (MoCA, SDMT) and societal participation (GOSE). Strategies to increase inter-rater reliability and decrease missing data are described. Discussion: The TTM2-trial follow-up is a pragmatic yet detailed pre-planned and standardised assessment of patient's outcome designed to ensure data-quality, decrease missing data and provide optimal conditions to investigate clinically relevant effects of TTM, including OHCA-survivors’ neurocognitive function and societal participation.
|
|
