Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Asunto principal
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1170, 2021 Nov 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34800996

RESUMEN

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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). 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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 (I2 = 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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/terapia , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del Tratamiento , Sueroterapia para COVID-19
2.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 66: 102381, 2021 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34026114

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Splenectomy is a surgical intervention for a variety of indications; benign and malignant. Complications of this procedure include Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and infection. The incidence of VTE post-surgery has been reported between 0.8%-3% depending on the type of surgery. A higher incidence of abdominal VTE was reported post splenectomy (6-11%). However, there is limited literature regarding the risk factors for post splenectomy VTE and the optimal strategy for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the incidence of VTE post splenectomy and to identify the pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative risk factors. The secondary objective was to assess the local compliance with post-splenectomy prophylactic antibiotics and vaccination protocols. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study. All patients who had a splenectomy in St James's Hospital between January 2007 and June 2017 were included and reviewed. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS statistical package. RESULTS: 85 patients were involved in the study. The main indications for splenectomy were benign haematology, malignant haematology, solid tumours, traumatic and spontaneous rupture. 6/85 patients developed VTE (7.06%).High BMI ≥ 30 was associated with increased risk of VTE (p = 0.007), while the use of post-operative prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with reduced risk (p = 0.005). Other factors including age >50 years, female gender, presence of active malignancy and splenomegaly were associated with increased VTE risk with no statistical significance. All VTE's occurred in elective versus emergency splenectomy. Laparoscopic splenectomy was associated with higher risk of VTE than open splenectomy. 97% of patients were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics on discharge, but only 88% had received recommended vaccinations. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism is common post splenectomy. Our data showed that BMI ≥30 was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of VTE, while the use of prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with reduced risk. Further prospective studies with larger samples are warranted and a splenectomy care plan may be helpful.

3.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 9927, 2021 05 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33976287

RESUMEN

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in COVID-19 disease may improve clinical outcome in severe disease. This pilot study was undertaken to inform feasibility and safety of further definitive studies. This was a prospective, interventional and randomized open label pilot trial in patients with severe COVID-19. Twenty COVID-19 patients received two 200 ml transfusions of convalescent patient CP over 24-h compared with 20 who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the requirement for ventilation (non-invasive or mechanical ventilation). The secondary outcomes were biochemical parameters and mortality at 28 days. The CP group were a higher risk group with higher ferritin levels (p < 0.05) though respiratory indices did not differ. The primary outcome measure was required in 6 controls and 4 patients on CP (risk ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.22-2.0, p = 0.72); mean time on ventilation (NIV or MV) did not differ. There were no differences in secondary measures at the end of the study. Two patients died in the control and one patient in the CP arm. There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures between CP and standard therapy, although a larger definitive study is needed for confirmation. However, the study did show that CP therapy appears to be safe in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxia.Clinical trials registration NCT04356534: 22/04/2020.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/patología , COVID-19/virología , Femenino , Ferritinas/metabolismo , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Prospectivos , Respiración Artificial/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Tasa de Supervivencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Sueroterapia para COVID-19
4.
EJHaem ; 2(2): 167-174, 2021 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33821258

RESUMEN

Introduction: Studies that examine the association between sickle cell disease (SCD) and COVID-19 outcomes are lacking. This study aims to determine whether SCD is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection in regard to the requirement of noninvasive ventilation/high flow nasal cannula (NIV/HFNC), mechanical ventilation (MV), or death in hospitalized patients. Methods: Retrospective cohort study included COVID-19 patients admitted to four COVID-19 treatment facilities in Bahrain between February 24, 2020 and July 31, 2020. All SCD patients with COVID-19 were included and compared to a randomly selected sample of non-SCD patients with COVID-19. Data were collected from the medical records. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to control for confounders and estimate the effect of SCD on the outcomes. Results: 1792 patients with COVID-19 were included; 38 of whom were diagnosed with SCD as well. In the SCD group, one (2.6%) patient required NIV/HFNC, one (2.6%) required MV, and one (2.6%) death occurred. In comparison, 56 (3.2%) of the non-SCD patients required NIV/HFNC, 47 (2.7%) required MV, and death occurred in 58 (3.3%) patients. Upon adjusting for confounders, SCD had an odds ratio of 1.847 (95% CI: 0.39-8.83; p = 0.442). Conclusion: Our results indicate that SCD is not a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...