| 1. |
- Aslam, Tayyba N., et al.
(författare)
-
A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:10, s. 1383-1394
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWhen caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers.MethodsWe distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.ConclusionsThe responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.
|
|
| 2. |
- Berntorp, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Optimising prophylaxis in haemophilia A : The ups and downs of treatment
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Blood Reviews. - : Elsevier BV. - 0268-960X. ; 50
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The classical goals of haemophilia A treatment are to prevent bleeds, minimise the risk of long-term complications associated with joint damage, and improve quality of life by maintaining appropriate factor VIII [FVIII] levels. The dose and frequency of FVIII replacement therapies required to reduce bleeds is now known to vary amongst individuals, and may change for the same individual over time, meaning that a standardised dose and regimen may not provide optimal protection to all patients. Here we review the evolving treatment landscape for haemophilia A, and discuss how an increased understanding of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics underlying FVIII replacement and non-factor replacement therapies could improve patient outcomes. We also review the strengths and weaknesses of current treatments and explore the benefits of personalised therapy and review how this may best be achieved with current treatment options. The key points of our review are summarised in this accompanying short video.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:1, s. 45-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:5, s. 702-710
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48, s. 580-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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. |
- Hansen, Lasse Tengbjerg, et al.
(författare)
-
DNA Repair Rate and Etoposide (VP16) Resistance of Tumor Cell Subpopulations derived from a Single Human Small Cell Lung Cancer
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Lung Cancer. - : Elsevier. - 0169-5002. ; 40:2, s. 157-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two human small cell lung cancer (SCLC) subpopulations, CPH 54A, and CPH 54B, established from the same patient tumor by in vitro cloning, were investigated. The tumor was classified as intermediate-type SCLC. The cellular sensitivity to ionizing radiation (IR) was previously determined in the two sublines both in vivo and in vitro. Here we measured the etoposide (VP16) sensitivity together with the induction and repair of VP16- and IR-induced DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). The two subpopulations were found to differ significantly in sensitivity to VP16, with the radioresistant 54B subline also being VP16 resistant. In order to explain the VP16 resistant phenotype several mechanisms where considered. The p53 status, P-glycoprotein, MRP, topoisomerase IIα, and Mre11 protein levels, as well as growth kinetics, provided no explanations of the observed VP16 resistance. In contrast, a significant difference in repair of both VP16- and IR-induced DSBs, together with a difference in the levels of the DSB repair proteins DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PKcs) and RAD51 was observed. The VP16- and radioresistant 54B subline exhibited a pronounced higher repair rate of DSBs and higher protein levels of both DNA-PKcs and RAD51 compared with the sensitive 54A subline. We suggest, that different DSB repair rates among tumor cell subpopulations of individual SCLC tumors may be a major determinant for the variation in clinical treatment effect observed in human SCLC tumors of identical histological subtype.
|
|
| 7. |
- Jensen, Lars Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and standard treatment in patients with locally advanced colon cancer: The NeoCol trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 41:17_SUPPL
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- LBA3503Background: Locally advanced colon cancer presents a therapeutic challenge regarding improving survival and minimizing side effects by optimizing the timing of surgical and systemic treatments. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a widely accepted approach in numerous cancers as it aims to eliminate micrometastases and reduce tumor size. Our study aimed to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on locally advanced colon cancer compared to standard initial surgery. Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven colon cancer were eligible for inclusion if staged as T4 or T3 with invasion depth >= 5 mm, N0-2, and M0 according to CT scan evaluation. Patients were randomly assigned to either standard upfront surgery or surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either 3 cycles of CAPOX (oxaliplatin, capecitabine every 3 weeks) or 4 cycles of FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, 5FU every 2 weeks). Adjuvant chemotherapy was chosen based on the pathological stage of the cancer according to guidelines. The primary endpoint, disease-free survival (DFS), was analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The sample size was set at 125 patients per arm, based on a projected increase in two-year disease-free survival from 80% to 90%, with a two-sided significance level of 5%, power of 80%, 3 years of inclusion, 2 years of follow-up, and a 10% drop-out rate. Results: Nine centers in 3 countries included 122 patients in the standard group and 126 patients in the neoadjuvant group from 10/2013 to 11/2021. Forty-four % were female, the median age was 66 years, and 91% had a performance status (PS) of 0, while 9% had a PS of 1. Seventy-three % of the tumors were classified as T3, with a median outgrowth of 11 mm, while 26% were classified as T4 on the baseline CT scan. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was lower in the neoadjuvant group, 3 (IQR 1-7) vs. 4 (0-8). There were slightly more postoperative complications in the standard group regarding ileus, anastomotic leakage, and length of stay. Postoperatively, more patients in the standard arm had an indication of adjuvant chemotherapy, 88 vs. 72 (p = 0.02). DFS at 2 years was similar in the two arms (p = 0.95, logrank), as was overall survival (OS) (p = 0.95, logrank). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and standard upfront surgery showed no significant difference in DFS and OS in patients with colon cancer. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy seemed to have more favorable outcomes in terms of chemotherapy cycles, postoperative complications, and downstaging. CT scan alone may not be sufficient in identifying high-risk patients preoperatively. These findings suggest that neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be considered a viable treatment option for patients with locally advanced colon cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01918527.
|
|
| 8. |
- Mortensen, Camilla Bekker, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - 0342-4642. ; 50:1, s. 103-113
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. Methods: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. Results: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of − 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] − 12.8%-points to − 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI − 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI − 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. Conclusions: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.
|
|
| 9. |
- Mortensen, Camilla B., et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality and HRQoL in ICU patients with delirium : Protocol for 1-year follow-up of AID-ICU trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 64:10, s. 1519-1525
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods : The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value. Results: We expect to publish results of this study in 2022. Conclusion: We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.
|
|
| 10. |
- Munch, Marie W., et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 326:18, s. 1807-1817
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
