Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 436
Filtrar
1.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33583034

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

2.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33583027

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

3.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 12, 2021 Jan 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33413645

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Existing self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve 'real life' patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes' motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any healthcare professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and trial sequential analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE. DISCUSSION: Self-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

4.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 20(1): 284, 2020 Nov 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33256626

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Assessing benefits and harms of health interventions is resource-intensive and often requires feasibility and pilot trials followed by adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Data from feasibility and pilot trials are used to inform the design and sample size of the adequately powered randomised clinical trials. When a randomised clinical trial is conducted, results from feasibility and pilot trials may be disregarded in terms of benefits and harms. METHODS: We describe using feasibility and pilot trial data in the Trial Sequential Analysis software to estimate the required sample size for one or more trials investigating a behavioural smoking cessation intervention. We show how data from a new, planned trial can be combined with data from the earlier trials using trial sequential analysis methods to assess the intervention's effects. RESULTS: We provide a worked example to illustrate how we successfully used the Trial Sequential Analysis software to arrive at a sensible sample size for a new randomised clinical trial and use it in the argumentation for research funds for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Trial Sequential Analysis can utilise data from feasibility and pilot trials as well as other trials, to estimate a sample size for one or more, similarly designed, future randomised clinical trials. As this method uses available data, estimated sample sizes may be smaller than they would have been using conventional sample size estimation methods.

5.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e032570, 2020 Dec 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33293302

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Overweight in children is increasing worldwide. Innovative smartphone health applications (mHealth apps) have either sought to deliver single or multi-component interventions for the management of overweight in children. However, the clinical effects of these apps are poorly explored. The objective of the review will be to compare the benefits and harms of different categories of mHealth apps for intervention of overweight in children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, year, status or language. Children and adolescents between 0 to 18 years will be referred to as children in the remaining part of the paper. Children with all degrees of overweight included obesity and morbidly obese in the remaining part of the paper will be referred to as overweight. We plan to classify different apps according to type of intervention, measurement device, coaching and reward system. The following databases will be used: Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, IEEE Explore and Web of Science, CINAHL and LILACS. Primary outcomes will be body mass index z-score, quality of life and serious adverse event. Secondary outcomes will be body weight, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression and adverse event not considered serious. Study inclusion, data extraction and bias risk assessment will be conducted independently by at least two authors. We will assess the risk of bias through eight domains and control risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool (GRADE). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the protocol is for a systematic reviews, we have not included any patient data and we do not require ethical approval. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019120266.

7.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 262, 2020 11 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33218366

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; "active placebo;" no intervention; standard care; an "active" intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196492.

8.
BMJ Open ; 10(11): e036058, 2020 Nov 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33154043

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of children with overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide. Multicomponent interventions incorporating diet, physical activity and behavioural change have shown limited improvement to body mass index (BMI). However, the impact of psychotherapy is poorly explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effects of psychotherapeutic approaches for children with all degrees of overweight. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised clinical trials involving children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years with overweight and obesity, irrespective of publication type, year, status or language up to April 2020. Psychotherapy will be compared with no intervention; wait list control; treatment as usual; sham psychotherapy or pharmaceutical placebo. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and LILACS. Primary outcomes will be BMI z-score, quality of life measured by a validated scale and proportion of patients with serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be body weight, self-esteem, anxiety, depression and proportion of patients with non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will be body fat, muscle mass and serious adverse events. Study inclusion, data extraction and bias risk assessments will be conducted independently by at least two authors. We will assess risk of bias according to Cochrane guidelines and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care guidance. We will use meta-analysis and control risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool. The systematic review will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As individual patient data will not be included, we do not require ethics approval. This review will be published in a peer review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086458.

9.
Open Heart ; 7(2)2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33046592

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112082.

10.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 2020 Sep 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32998993

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded. DESIGN: Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018. SETTING: Trial reports published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. RESULTS: 63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

11.
Cardiovasc Diabetol ; 19(1): 150, 2020 Sep 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32979921

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Metformin has been shown to have both neuroprotective and neurodegenerative effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of metformin in combination with insulin on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) and distal peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: The study is a sub-study of the CIMT trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, where 412 patients with T2DM were randomized to 18 months of metformin or placebo in addition to open-labelled insulin. Outcomes were measures of CAN: Changes in heart rate response to deep breathing (beat-to-beat), orthostatic blood pressure (OBP) and heart rate and vibration detection threshold (VDT) as a marker DPN. Serum levels of vitamin B12 and methyl malonic acid (MMA) were analysed. RESULTS: After 18 months early drop in OBP (30 s after standing) was increased in the metformin group compared to placebo: systolic blood pressure drop increased by 3.4 mmHg (95% CI 0.6; 6.2, p = 0.02) and diastolic blood pressure drop increased by 1.3 mmHg (95% CI 0.3; 2.6, p = 0.045) compared to placebo. Beat-to-beat variation decreased in the metformin group by 1.1 beats per minute (95% CI - 2.4; 0.2, p = 0.10). Metformin treatment did not affect VDT group difference - 0.33 V (95% CI - 1.99; 1.33, p = 0.39) or other outcomes. Changes in B12, MMA and HbA1c did not confound the associations. CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen months of metformin treatment in combination with insulin compared with insulin alone increased early drop in OBP indicating an adverse effect of metformin on CAN independent of vitamin B12, MMA HbA1c. Trial registration The protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H-D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943).

12.
PLoS Med ; 17(9): e1003293, 2020 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32941437

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Calidad de Vida , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/psicología , Hospitalización/tendencias , Humanos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/psicología
14.
J Diabetes Complications ; 34(10): 107681, 2020 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32741659

RESUMEN

AIMS: To investigate measures of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and conventional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors as predictors of future carotid IMT, and the prediction of CV events during follow-up based on measures of carotid IMT. METHODS: Observational longitudinal study including 230 persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESULTS: Mean age at follow-up was 66.7 (SD 8.5) years, 30.5% were women and mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.8 (4.4) kg/m2. Carotid IMT was measured at baseline, after 18 months of intervention in the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial and after a mean follow-up of 6.4 (1.0) years. Baseline carotid IMT, carotid IMT after 18 months' intervention, and CV risk factors (age, sex and baseline systolic blood pressure) gave the best prediction of carotid IMT (root mean-squared error of prediction of 0.106 and 95% prediction error probability interval of -0.160, 0.204). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of carotid IMT combined with CV risk factors at baseline predicts attained carotid IMT better than measures of carotid IMT or CV risk factors alone. Carotid IMT did not predict CV events, and the present results do not support the use of carotid IMT as a predictor of CV events in persons with T2D.

15.
BMJ Open ; 10(8): e033720, 2020 08 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32819979

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess if 12 novel circulating biomarkers, when added to 'standard predictors' available in general practice, could improve the 10-year prediction of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. DESIGN: The patients participated as placebo receiving patients in the randomised clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CLARICOR) trial at a random time in their disease trajectory. SETTING: Five Copenhagen University cardiology departments and a coordinating centre. PARTICIPANTS: 1998 participants with stable coronary artery disease. OUTCOMES: Death and composite of myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease and death. RESULTS: When only 'standard predictors' were included, 83.4% of all-cause death predictions and 68.4% of composite outcome predictions were correct. Log(calprotectin) and log(cathepsin-S) were not associated (p≥0.01) with the outcomes, not even as single predictors. Adding the remaining 10 biomarkers (high-sensitive assay cardiac troponin T; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; osteoprotegerin; N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; tumour necrosis factor receptor 1 and 2; pregnancy-associated plasma protein A; endostatin; YKL40; cathepsin-B), which were all individually significantly associated with the prediction of the two outcomes, increased the figures to 84.7% and 69.7%. CONCLUSION: When 'standard predictors' routinely available in general practices are used for risk assessment in consecutively sampled patients with stable coronary artery disease, the addition of 10 novel biomarkers to the prediction model improved the correct prediction of all-cause death and the composite outcome by <1.5%. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00121550.

16.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 64(9): 1365-1375, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32779728

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists. METHODS: The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

17.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 2020 Aug 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32763959

RESUMEN

The Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp aluminium adjuvant 'amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate' (AAHS), primarily used in the Gardasil vaccines against human papilloma virus, has been criticised for lack of evidence for its safety. Documentation from Danish authorities and answers from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) suggest that AAHS may not have been sufficiently evaluated. Documentation from the Danish Medicines Agency shows discrepancies in the trial documents of two prelicensure clinical trials with Gardasil in 2002 and 2003. For both trials, the Agency seems to have authorised potassium aluminium sulfate as the adjuvant and not AAHS. In addition, the participants in the trial launched in 2002 were informed that the comparator was saline, even though the comparator was AAHS in an expedient consisting of L-histidine, polysorbate-80, sodium borate and sodium chloride. According to the EMA, AAHS was first introduced in Europe in 2004 as the adjuvant in Procomvax, a vaccine against the hepatitis B virus and Haemophilus influenza type b. The EMA reports that AAHS was introduced without any prelicensure safety evaluation. The adjuvant is described by the company to be both physically and functionally distinct from all other previously used aluminium adjuvants. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of benefits and harms of the adjuvant AAHS.

18.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237136, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32790771

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS: We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury and were analysed conducting random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four randomised clinical trials (total n = 385 patients) with severe acquired brain injury (stroke 86% and traumatic brain injury 13%). Two trials were at low risk and two at high risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation vs. standard care on mortality or poor functional outcome at end of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.53; I2 0%; very low certainty) or at maximal follow-up (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; I2 0%; very low certainty). We found evidence against an effect on quality of life at maximal follow-up. The proportion of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ at end of intervention or at maximal follow-up. For most comparisons, TSA suggested that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury. Early mobilisation appeared not to exert a major impact on quality of life. This systematic review highlights the insufficient evidence in patients with severe brain injury, and no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol uploaded to PROSPERO: April 2018 (revised October 2018, CRD42018088790).


Asunto(s)
Lesiones Encefálicas/rehabilitación , Posicionamiento del Paciente/métodos , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular/métodos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Lesiones Encefálicas/terapia , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Posicionamiento del Paciente/efectos adversos , Posicionamiento del Paciente/normas , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular/efectos adversos , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular/normas
19.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry ; 59(7): 787-791, 2020 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32618274

RESUMEN

In a recent letter to the editor, a group of clinician-researchers posit that the conclusions in our published systematic review1 on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are based on inappropriate methodology. In this reply, we address the concerns expressed by Storch et al.2.

20.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 64(9): 1327-1334, 2020 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32531069

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit, fluid overload is frequent and a risk factor for organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Primarily, lung and kidney functions may be impaired by fluid overload resulting in acute respiratory failure and acute kidney injury. No clinical guidelines exist for treatment of fluid overload in intensive care patients. Loop diuretics, most often furosemide, appear to be the most frequently used pharmacological intervention. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods of a systematic review assessing the evidence of treatment with loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and report it according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements, use the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook and assess the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We will include randomised clinical trials identified through searches of major international databases and trial registers. Two authors will independently screen and select trials for inclusion, extract data and assess the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO. DISCUSSION: We aim to provide reliable evidence on the use of loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload to guide clinicians, decision makers and trialists on clinical practice.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA