| 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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. |
- Zacharowski, Kai, et al.
(författare)
-
Intensive care medicine in Europe : Perspectives from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Anaesthesiology. - 0265-0215. ; 39:10, s. 795-800
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Anaesthesiology represents a rapidly evolving medical specialty in global healthcare, currently covering advanced peri-operative, pre-hospital and in-hospital critical emergency management (CREM), intensive care medicine (ICM) and pain management. The aim of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) is to develop and promote a coordinated interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary European network of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (AICM) societies for improvement of patient safety and outcome, and to enhance political and public awareness of the role of anaesthesiologists all over Europe. The ESAIC promotes coordinated interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary care for severely compromised patients, based on the European training requirements (ETR) within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).METHODSTo define the current situation of AICM in Europe, a survey was sent in April 2019 to the ESAIC Council and the ESAIC National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee (NASC) members. The survey posed questions regarding the year of foundation, the inclusion of ICM in the society name, and if, and to what extent, various kinds (postoperative, general, specific, mixed) of national ICUs are being run by differing medical specialties. The study data were compiled and analysed by the ESAIC Board, Council and NASC in December 2019.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONAmongst the 42 European national societies surveyed (41 members of ESAIC-NASC plus Luxembourg), nineteen (45%) also include terms related to critical care medicine or ICM in their names, seven (17%) include terms related to reanimation and three (7%) to resuscitation. In recent years, several national societies revised their names to better reflect their gradual embrace of peri-operative medicine, ICM, CREM and pain management. Approximately 70% of ICU beds in Europe, and 100% in Scandinavia, are being run by anaesthesiologists, the remaining 30% being managed by physicians from other surgical or medical specialties. To emphasise future needs and resources of European AICM, the ESAIC drafted an ICM roadmap in terms of clinical practice, organisation of healthcare, interprofessional and interdisciplinary collaboration, patient safety, outcome and empowerment, professional working conditions, and changes in research, teaching and training required to meet future challenges and expectations.
|
|
