| 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Burney, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence and Population-Attributable Risk for Chronic Airflow Obstruction in a Large Multinational Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. - 1073-449X .- 1535-4970. ; 203:11, s. 1353-1365
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Rationale: The Global Burden of Disease program identified smoking and ambient and household air pollution as the main drivers of death and disability from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Objectives: To estimate the attributable risk of chronic airflow obstruction (CAO), a quantifiable characteristic of COPD, due to several risk factors.Methods: The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study is a cross-sectional study of adults, aged ≥40, in a globally distributed sample of 41 urban and rural sites. Based on data from 28,459 participants, we estimated the prevalence of CAO, defined as a postbronchodilator FEV1-to-FVC ratio less than the lower limit of normal, and the relative risks associated with different risk factors. Local relative risks were estimated using a Bayesian hierarchical model borrowing information from across sites. From these relative risks and the prevalence of risk factors, we estimated local population attributable risks.Measurements and Main Results: The mean prevalence of CAO was 11.2% in men and 8.6% in women. The mean population attributable risk for smoking was 5.1% in men and 2.2% in women. The next most influential risk factors were poor education levels, working in a dusty job for ≥10 years, low body mass index, and a history of tuberculosis. The risk of CAO attributable to the different risk factors varied across sites.Conclusions: Although smoking remains the most important risk factor for CAO, in some areas, poor education, low body mass index, and passive smoking are of greater importance. Dusty occupations and tuberculosis are important risk factors at some sites.
|
|
