Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival In Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients: A Multicentric Cohort Study by the Italian CML GIMEMA Network

An observational prospective study was conducted by the CML Italian network to analyze the role of baseline patient characteristics and first line treatments on overall survival and CML-related mortality in 1206 newly diagnosed CML patients, 608 treated with imatinib (IMA) and 598 with 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2GTKI). IMA-treated patients were much older (median age 69 years, IQR 58-77) than the 2GTKI group (52, IQR 41-63) and had more comorbidities. Estimated 4-year overall survival of the entire cohort was 89% (95%CI 85.9-91.4). Overall, 73 patients (6.1%) died: 17 (2.8%) in the 2GTKI vs 56 (9.2%) in the IMA cohort (adjusted HR=0.50; 95% CI=0.26-0.94), but no differences were detected for CML-related mortality (10 (1.7%) vs 11 (1.8%) in the 2GTKIs vs IMA cohort (sHR=1.61; 0.52-4.96). The ELTS score was associated to CML mortality (high risk vs low, HR=9.67; 95%CI 2.94-31.74; p<0.001), while age (per year, HR=1.03; 95%CI 1.00-1.06; p=0.064), CCI (4-5 vs 2, HR=5.22; 95%CI 2.56-10.65; p<0.001), ELTS score (high risk vs low, HR=3.11; 95%CI 1.52-6.35, p=0.002) and 2GTKI vs IMA (HR=0.26; 95%CI 0.10-0.65, p=0.004) were associated to an increased risk of non-related CML mortality. The ELTS score showed a better discriminant ability than the Sokal score in all comparisons

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).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

Implementation of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol for colorectal cancer surgery in the Piemonte Region with an Audit and Feedback approach: Study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: A study of the EASY-NET project

Introduction The ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal pathway aimed to reduce surgical stress and to allow a rapid postoperative recovery. Application of the ERAS protocol to colorectal cancer surgery has been limited to a minority of hospitals in Italy. To promote the systematic adoption of ERAS in the entire regional hospital network in Piemonte an Audit and Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted together with a cluster randomised trial to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population. Methods A multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is designed for comparison between standard perioperative management and the management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: incidence of postoperative complications, time to patients' recovery, control of pain and patients' satisfaction. With an A&F approach the adherence to the ERAS items is monitored through a dedicated area in the study web site. The study includes 28 surgical centres, stratified by activity volume and randomly divided into four groups. Each group is randomly assigned to a different activation period of the ERAS protocol. There are four activation periods, one every 3 months. However, the planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended by 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected sample size of about 2200 patients has a high statistical power (98%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other endpoints. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating centre and by all participating centres. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04037787

Additional file 2 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Email invitation

Additional file 1 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy

Additional file 7 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 7. Sensitivity analyses: various meta-analytic approaches