RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend active fever prevention for 72 hours after cardiac arrest. Data from randomized clinical trials of this intervention have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned comatose patients who had been resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to device-based temperature control targeting 36°C for 24 hours followed by targeting of 37°C for either 12 or 48 hours (for total intervention times of 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability; a category of 3 or 4 indicates severe cerebral disability or coma) within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability) at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 393 patients were randomly assigned to temperature control for 36 hours, and 396 patients were assigned to temperature control for 72 hours. At 90 days after randomization, a primary end-point event had occurred in 127 of 393 patients (32.3%) in the 36-hour group and in 133 of 396 patients (33.6%) in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.26; P = 0.70) and mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group. At 3 months, the median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 26 (interquartile range, 24 to 29) and 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 28), respectively. There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation; BOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141099.).
RESUMEN
AIM: To identify investigated interventions for COVID-19 prevention or treatment via trial registry entries on planned or ongoing randomised clinical trials. To assess these registry entries for recruitment status, planned trial size, blinding and reporting of mortality. METHODS: We identified trial registry entries systematically via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and 33 trial registries up to June 23, 2020. We included relevant trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating medical preventive, adjunct or supportive therapies and therapeutics for treatment of COVID-19. Studies with non-random and single-arm design were excluded. Trial registry entries were screened by two authors independently and data were systematically extracted. RESULTS: We included 1303 trial registry entries from 71 countries investigating 381 different single interventions. Blinding was planned in 47% of trials. Sample size was >200 participants in 40% of trials and a total of 611,364 participants were planned for inclusion. Mortality was listed as an outcome in 57% of trials. Recruitment was ongoing in 54% of trials and completed in 8%. Thirty-five percent were multicenter trials. The five most frequent investigational categories were immune modulating drugs (266 trials (20%)), unconventional medicine (167 trials (13%)), antimalarial drugs (118 trials (9%)), antiviral drugs (100 trials (8%)) and respiratory adjuncts (78 trials (6%)). The five most frequently tested uni-modal interventions were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (113 trials with 199,841 participants); convalescent plasma (64 trials with 11,840 participants); stem cells (51 trials with 3,370 participants); tocilizumab (19 trials with 4,139 participants) and favipiravir (19 trials with 3,210 participants). CONCLUSION: An extraordinary number of randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 management have been initiated with a multitude of medical preventive, adjunctive and treatment modalities. Blinding will be used in only 47% of trials, which may have influence on future reported treatment effects. Fifty-seven percent of all trials will assess mortality as an outcome facilitating future meta-analyses.