Statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome : Adherence and reasons for non-adherence in a randomized controlled intervention trial

Studies of secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease show low fulfilment of guideline-recommended targets. This study explored whether nurse-led follow-up could increase adherence to statins over time and reasons for discontinuation. All patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome at Östersund hospital between 2010–2014 were screened for the randomized controlled NAILED-ACS trial. The trial comprises two groups, one with nurse-led annual follow-up and medical titration by telephone to reach set intervention targets and one with usual care. All discontinuations of statins were recorded prospectively for at least 36 months and categorized as avoidable or unavoidable. Kaplan-Meier estimates were conducted for first and permanent discontinuations. Predictors for discontinuation were analysed using multivariate Cox regression, statin type and mean LDL-C at end of follow-up. Female gender was a predictor for discontinuation. Allocation in the intervention group predicted increased risk for a first but decreased risk for permanent discontinuation. A nurse-led telemedical secondary prevention programme in a relatively unselected ACS cohort leads to increased adherence to statins over time, greater percentage on potent treatment and lower LDL-C compared to usual care. An initially increased tendency toward early discontinuation in the intervention group stresses the importance of a longer duration of structured follow-up.Errata: Huber, D., Wikén, C., Henriksson, R. et al. Author Correction: Statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome: Adherence and reasons for non-adherence in a randomized controlled intervention trial. Scientific Reports 2021:11(1):6454 (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85469-y</p

Convalescence plasma treatment of COVID-19 : results from a prematurely terminated randomized controlled open-label study in Southern Sweden

Objective: Convalescent plasma has been tried as therapy for various viral infections. Early observational studies of convalescent plasma treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were promising, but randomized controlled studies were lacking at the time. The objective of this study was to investigate if convalescent plasma is beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results: Hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 and an oxygen saturation below 94% were randomized 1:1 to receive convalescent plasma in addition to standard of care or standard of care only. The primary outcome was number of days of oxygen treatment to keep saturation above 93% within 28 days from inclusion. The study was prematurely terminated when thirty-one of 100 intended patients had been included. The median time of oxygen treatment among survivors was 11 days (IQR 6–15) for the convalescent plasma group and 7 days (IQR 5–9) for the standard of care group (p = 0.4, median difference -4). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group and three patients in the standard of care group died (p = 0.64, OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08–2.79). Thus no significant differences were observed between the groups

Convalescent plasma treatment in severely immunosuppressed patients hospitalized with COVID-19 : an observational study of 28 cases

Background: Immunosuppressed patients are particularly vulnerable to severe infection from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), risking prolonged viremia and symptom duration. In this study we describe clinical and virological treatment outcomes in a heterogeneous group of patients with severe immunosuppression due to various causes suffering from COVID-19 infection, who were all treated with convalescent plasma (CCP) along with standard treatment. Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective case series between May 2020 to March 2021 at three sites in Skåne, Sweden, with a population of nearly 1.4 million people. All patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who received CCP with the indication severe immunosuppression as defined by the treating physician were included in the study (n = 28). Results: In total, 28 severely immunocompromised patients, half of which previously had been treated with rituximab, who had received in-hospital convalescent plasma treatment of COVID-19 were identified. One week after CCP treatment, 13 of 28 (46%) patients had improved clinically defined as a decrease of at least one point at the WHO-scale. Three patients had increased score points of whom two had died. For 12 patients, the WHO-scale was unchanged. Conclusion: As one of only few studies on CCP treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe immunosuppression, this study adds descriptive data. The study design prohibits conclusions on safety and efficacy, and the results should be interpreted with caution. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to investigate this further

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

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, 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

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

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, 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