| 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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. |
- Babrak, Lmar, et al.
(författare)
-
Adaptive Immune Receptor Repertoire (AIRR) Community Guide to TR and IG Gene Annotation
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Immunogenetics : Methods and Protocols - Methods and Protocols. - New York, NY : Springer US. - 1064-3745. - 9781071621141 - 9781071621158 ; 2453, s. 279-296
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High-throughput sequencing of adaptive immune receptor repertoires (AIRR, i.e., IG and TR) has revolutionized the ability to carry out large-scale experiments to study the adaptive immune response. Since the method was first introduced in 2009, AIRR sequencing (AIRR-Seq) has been applied to survey the immune state of individuals, identify antigen-specific or immune-state-associated signatures of immune responses, study the development of the antibody immune response, and guide the development of vaccines and antibody therapies. Recent advancements in the technology include sequencing at the single-cell level and in parallel with gene expression, which allows the introduction of multi-omics approaches to understand in detail the adaptive immune response. Analyzing AIRR-seq data can prove challenging even with high-quality sequencing, in part due to the many steps involved and the need to parameterize each step. In this chapter, we outline key factors to consider when preprocessing raw AIRR-Seq data and annotating the genetic origins of the rearranged receptors. We also highlight a number of common difficulties with common AIRR-seq data processing and provide strategies to address them.
|
|
| 3. |
- Smakaj, Erand, et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking immunoinformatic tools for the analysis of antibody repertoire sequences
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bioinformatics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1367-4803 .- 1460-2059. ; 36:6, s. 1731-1739
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- SUMMARY: Antibody repertoires reveal insights into the biology of the adaptive immune system and empower diagnostics and therapeutics. There are currently multiple tools available for the annotation of antibody sequences. All downstream analyses such as choosing lead drug candidates depend on the correct annotation of these sequences; however, a thorough comparison of the performance of these tools has not been investigated. Here, we benchmark the performance of commonly used immunoinformatic tools, i.e. IMGT/HighV-QUEST, IgBLAST and MiXCR, in terms of reproducibility of annotation output, accuracy and speed using simulated and experimental high-throughput sequencing datasets.We analyzed changes in IMGT reference germline database in the last 10 years in order to assess the reproducibility of the annotation output. We found that only 73/183 (40%) V, D and J human genes were shared between the reference germline sets used by the tools. We found that the annotation results differed between tools. In terms of alignment accuracy, MiXCR had the highest average frequency of gene mishits, 0.02 mishit frequency and IgBLAST the lowest, 0.004 mishit frequency. Reproducibility in the output of complementarity determining three regions (CDR3 amino acids) ranged from 4.3% to 77.6% with preprocessed data. In addition, run time of the tools was assessed: MiXCR was the fastest tool for number of sequences processed per unit of time. These results indicate that immunoinformatic analyses greatly depend on the choice of bioinformatics tool. Our results support informed decision-making to immunoinformaticians based on repertoire composition and sequencing platforms. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All tools utilized in the paper are free for academic use. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
|
|
