Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0260733, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643240

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , /administration & dosage , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Network Meta-Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Vaccines, Inactivated , Vaccines, Subunit , /adverse effects
2.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e047037, 2021 12 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1595822

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In the management of type 2 diabetes, autonomy-supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieving more long-term improvement. Preliminary evidence has shown that the guided self-determination (GSD) method might have an effect on haemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes. Previous trials were at risk of uncertainty. Thus, the objective is to investigate the benefits and harms of a GSD intervention versus an attention control group intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial protocol is guided by the The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for International Trials Statement. We describe the protocol for a pragmatic randomised, dual-centre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial testing a GSD intervention versus an attention control for people with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics. The participants (n=224) will be recruited from two diverse regions of Denmark. The experimental stepped-care intervention will consist of three to five GSD sessions lasting up to 1 hour with a trained GSD facilitator. The sessions will be conducted face to face, by video conference or over the telephone. The attention controls will receive three to five sessions lasting up to an hour with a communication-trained healthcare professional provided face to-face, by video conference, or over the telephone. Participants will be included if they have type 2 diabetes,>18 years old, are not pregnant. Participants will be assessed before randomisation, at 5-month, and 12-month follow-up, the latter being the primary. The primary outcome is diabetes distress. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, depressive symptoms and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes are haemoglobin A1c, motivation and serious adverse events. Data will be collected using REDCap and analysed using Stata V.16. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its latest form, International Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the applicable regulatory requirement(s). The trial has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-864). The Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark reviewed the trial protocol, but exempted the trial protocol from full review (H-20003638). The results of the trial will be presented at the outpatient clinics treating people with type 2 diabetes, at national and international conferences as well as to associations for people with diabetes and their relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04601311.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Adolescent , Adult , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Attention , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Humans , Pregnancy , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
3.
N Engl J Med ; 384(24): 2283-2294, 2021 06 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275997

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty. METHODS: In an open-label trial with blinded assessment of outcomes, we randomly assigned 1900 adults with coma who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac or unknown cause to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33°C, followed by controlled rewarming, or targeted normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥37.8°C). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome at 6 months as assessed with the modified Rankin scale. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, age, initial cardiac rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and presence or absence of shock on admission. Prespecified adverse events were pneumonia, sepsis, bleeding, arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise, and skin complications related to the temperature management device. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 6 months, 465 of 925 patients (50%) in the hypothermia group had died, as compared with 446 of 925 (48%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.14; P = 0.37). Of the 1747 patients in whom the functional outcome was assessed, 488 of 881 (55%) in the hypothermia group had moderately severe disability or worse (modified Rankin scale score ≥4), as compared with 479 of 866 (55%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09). Outcomes were consistent in the prespecified subgroups. Arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (24% vs. 17%, P<0.001). The incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia did not lead to a lower incidence of death by 6 months than targeted normothermia. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TTM2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02908308.).


Subject(s)
Fever/therapy , Hypothermia, Induced , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Aged , Body Temperature , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Coma/etiology , Coma/therapy , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Hypothermia, Induced/adverse effects , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/complications , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/mortality , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
4.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 262, 2020 11 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-940035

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Network Meta-Analysis , Pandemics , Quality of Life , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL