| 1. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I-2=0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with increased mortality, and there was no benefit from chloroquine.
|
|
| 6. |
- Ioannidis, John P. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Environmental Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0013-9351 .- 1096-0953. ; 188
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To provide estimates of the relative rate of COVID-19 death in people <65 years old versus older individuals in the general population, the absolute risk of COVID-19 death at the population level during the first epidemic wave, and the proportion of COVID-19 deaths in non-elderly people without underlying diseases in epicenters of the pandemic. Eligible data: Cross-sectional survey of countries and US states with at least 800 COVID-19 deaths as of April 24, 2020 and with information on the number of deaths in people with age <65. Data were available for 14 countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) and 13 US states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania). We also examined available data on COVID-19 deaths in people with age <65 and no underlying diseases. Main outcome measures: Proportion of COVID-19 deaths in people <65 years old; relative mortality rate of COVID-19 death in people <65 versus >= 65 years old; absolute risk of COVID-19 death in people <65 and in those >= 80 years old in the general population as of June 17, 2020; absolute COVID-19 mortality rate expressed as equivalent of mortality rate from driving a motor vehicle. Results: Individuals with age <65 account for 4.5-11.2% of all COVID-19 deaths in European countries and Canada, 8.3-22.7% in the US locations, and were the majority in India and Mexico. People <65 years old had 30to 100-fold lower risk of COVID-19 death than those >= 65 years old in 11 European countries and Canada, 16- to 52-fold lower risk in US locations, and less than 10-fold in India and Mexico. The absolute risk of COVID-19 death as of June 17, 2020 for people <65 years old in high-income countries ranged from 10 (Germany) to 349 per million (New Jersey) and it was 5 per million in India and 96 per million in Mexico. The absolute risk of COVID19 death for people >= 80 years old ranged from 0.6 (Florida) to 17.5 per thousand (Connecticut). The COVID-19 mortality rate in people <65 years old during the period of fatalities from the epidemic was equivalent to the mortality rate from driving between 4 and 82 miles per day for 13 countries and 5 states, and was higher (equivalent to the mortality rate from driving 106-483 miles per day) for 8 other states and the UK. People <65 years old without underlying predisposing conditions accounted for only 0.7-3.6% of all COVID-19 deaths in France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Georgia, and New York City and 17.7% in Mexico. Conclusions: People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.
|
|
| 7. |
- Ioannidis, John P. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Second versus first wave of COVID-19 deaths : Shifts in age distribution and in nursing home fatalities
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Environmental Research. - : Elsevier. - 0013-9351 .- 1096-0953. ; 195
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To examine whether the age distribution of COVID-19 deaths and the share of deaths in nursing homes changed in the second versus the first pandemic wave. Eligible data: We considered all countries that had at least 4000 COVID-19 deaths occurring as of January 14, 2021, at least 200 COVID-19 deaths occurring in each of the two epidemic wave periods; and which had sufficiently detailed information available on the age distribution of these deaths. We also considered countries with data available on COVID-19 deaths of nursing home residents for the two waves. Main outcome measures: Change in the second wave versus the first wave in the proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurring in people <50 years ("young deaths") among all COVID-19 deaths and among COVID-19 deaths in people <70 years old; and change in the proportion of COVID-19 deaths in nursing home residents among all COVID-19 deaths. Results: Data on age distribution were available for 14 eligible countries. Individuals <50 years old had small absolute difference in their share of the total COVID-19 deaths in the two waves across 13 high-income countries (absolute differences 0.0-0.4%). Their proportion was higher in Ukraine, but it decreased markedly in the second wave. The proportion of young deaths was lower in the second versus the first wave (summary prevalence ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92) with large between-country heterogeneity. The proportion of young deaths among deaths <70 years did not differ significantly across the two waves (summary prevalence ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.86-1.06). Eligible data on nursing home COVID-19 deaths were available for 11 countries. The share of COVID-19 deaths that were accounted by nursing home residents decreased in the second wave significantly and substantially in 8 countries (prevalence ratio estimates: 0.36 to 0.78), remained the same in Denmark and Norway and markedly increased in Australia. Conclusions: In the examined countries, age distribution of COVID-19 deaths has been fairly similar in the second versus the first wave, but the contribution of COVID-19 deaths in nursing home residents to total fatalities has decreased in most countries in the second wave.
|
|
| 8. |
- Janiaud, Perrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 325:12, s. 1185-1195
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. STUDY SELECTION The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. RESULTS A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56%[95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.
|
|
| 9. |
- Naudet, Florian, et al.
(författare)
-
Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing : Ripe for improvement
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 18:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Summary points:Efficient sharing and reuse of data from clinical trials are critical in advancing medical knowledge and developing improved treatments.We believe that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) clinical trial data sharing policy is currently inadequate.Although data sharing plans help increase transparency, they do not ensure that data are shared, and they are often inadequately implemented.We believe that the ICMJE should adapt a stronger policy on data sharing that is enforced rigorously in all ICMJE members and affiliated journals.The policy should include a strong evaluation component to ensure that all clinical trial data are shared, their value maximized, and data producers incentivized.
|
|
| 10. |
- Thompson, Trevor, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for non-specific chronic low back pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS. - : BMC. - 2046-4053. ; 9:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. Methods We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. Discussion While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115
|
|
