Suppr超能文献

恢复期血浆治疗 2019 冠状病毒病住院患者:随机对照试验的荟萃分析与试验序贯分析。

Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

机构信息

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore.

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore.

出版信息

Transfus Med Rev. 2022 Jan;36(1):16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.09.001. Epub 2021 Oct 10.

Abstract

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (p = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

摘要

目前,关于恢复期血浆(CP)在 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者中的应用效果的随机对照试验(RCT)和系统评价的证据表明其并无益处。我们进行了一项更新的荟萃分析和试验序贯分析,以调查 CP 是否对降低 COVID-19 住院患者的死亡率无效。我们从 2019 年 12 月 1 日至 2021 年 8 月 1 日,在 6 个数据库中搜索了比较 CP 与 COVID-19 患者标准治疗或非 CP 标准血浆输血的 RCT。使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚评估工具评估了偏倚风险。采用随机效应(DerSimonian 和 Laird)荟萃分析。主要结局是两组患者住院死亡率的综合风险。我们基于住院死亡率的汇总相对风险(RR)进行了试验序贯分析(TSA)。次要结局包括机械通气接受率的汇总 RR 和住院时间的平均差异。我们纳入了 18 项 RCT(CP 组 8702 例,对照组 7906 例)。CP 与死亡率显著降低无关(RR:0.95,95%-CI:0.86-1.04,P=0.27,高确定性)。亚组分析未发现任何差异(p=0.30),即症状发作后 8 天内(RR:0.97,95%-CI:0.79-1.19,P=0.80)或 8 天后接受 CP 的患者(RR:0.79,95%-CI:0.57-1.10,P=0.16)。基于基线死亡率为 20%时 RR 降低 10%的 TSA 发现 CP 无效,汇总效果在无效性边界内。CP 并未显著降低机械通气需求(RR:1.00,95%-CI:0.91-1.10,P=0.99,中等确定性)或住院时间(+1.32,95%-CI:-1.86 至 +4.52,P=0.42,低确定性)。CP 并未改善 COVID-19 患者的相关临床结局,特别是在重症患者中。死亡率的汇总效果在无效性边界内,表明 CP 对 COVID-19 住院患者无益处。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a175/8502250/3c908439d381/gr1_lrg.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验