Author
Balasubramanian Venkatesh
Other affiliations: The George Institute for Global Health, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, University of Sydney ...read more
Bio: Balasubramanian Venkatesh is an academic researcher from University of New South Wales. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Clinical trial. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 5 publications receiving 23 citations. Previous affiliations of Balasubramanian Venkatesh include The George Institute for Global Health & Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
Papers
More filters
••
Cathrine Axfors1, Cathrine Axfors2, Perrine Janiaud3, Andreas M. Schmitt3 +227 more•Institutions (66)
TL;DR: In this article, 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials, were evaluated.
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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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.
35 citations
••
University of Copenhagen1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, Aalborg University3, Aarhus University Hospital4, Odense University Hospital5, Karolinska Institutet6, University of Bern7, University of New South Wales8, The George Institute for Global Health9, Imperial College London10, Manipal University11, Homi Bhabha National Institute12, Aarhus University13, University of Southern Denmark14
TL;DR: The COVID STEROID trial as discussed by the authors evaluated the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.
Abstract: Background In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. Results The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. Conclusions In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.
29 citations
••
University of Copenhagen1, Homi Bhabha National Institute2, Apollo Hospitals3, The George Institute for Global Health4, Karolinska Institutet5, University of Bern6, Copenhagen University Hospital7, University of New South Wales8, Manipal University9, Imperial College London10, Aalborg University11, Odense University Hospital12, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences13, Apollo Hospital, Indraprastha14, Bombay Hospital, Indore15, Linköping University16
TL;DR: In this article, a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90 was presented.
Abstract: Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. Discussion This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
11 citations
•
University of Sydney1, The George Institute for Global Health2, University of New South Wales3, Royal North Shore Hospital4, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital5, Royal Perth Hospital6, Auckland City Hospital7, Princess Alexandra Hospital8, St George's Hospital9, Copenhagen University Hospital10, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences11
TL;DR: A standard SAP for the ADRENAL trial is developed that accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimise analysis bias and is made public before completion of patient recruitment and data collection.
Abstract: Background: The Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial, a 3800-patient, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, will be the largest study to date of corticosteroid therapy in patients with septic shock. Objective: To describe a statistical analysis plan (SAP) and make it public before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial, to avoid analysis bias arising from knowledge of study findings. Methods: The SAP was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians and approved by the ADRENAL management committee. All authors were blind to treatment allocation and to the unblinded data produced during two interim analyses conducted by the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The data shells were produced from a previously published protocol. Statistical analyses are described in broad detail. Trial outcomes were selected and categorised into primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes, and appropriate statistical comparisons between groups are planned and described in a way that is transparent, available to the public, verifiable and determined before completion of data collection. Results: We developed a standard SAP for the ADRENAL trial, and have produced a trial profile outline and list of mock tables. We describe analyses of baseline characteristics, processes of care, measures of efficacy and outcomes. Six pre-specified subgroups were defined, and statistical comparisons between groups in these subgroups are described. Conclusion: We have developed an SAP for the ADRENAL trial. This plan accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimise analysis bias.
9 citations
••
Université Paris-Saclay1, Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University2, San Francisco General Hospital3, The George Institute for Global Health4, University of California, Berkeley5, University of Paris6, University of Queensland7, Imperial College London8, University of New South Wales9, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital10
TL;DR: An individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocort isone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock is performed.
Abstract: Author(s): Annane, Djillali; Pirracchio, Romain; Billot, Laurent; Waschka, Andre; Chevret, Sylvie; Cohen, Jeremy; Finfer, Simon; Gordon, Anthony; Hammond, Naomi; Myburgh, John; Venkatesh, Balasubramanian; Delaney, Anthony; ULYSSES IPDMA Collaborators | Abstract: IntroductionThe benefits and risks of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock have been investigated in numerous randomised controlled trials and trial-level meta-analyses. Yet, the routine use of this treatment remains controversial. To overcome the limitations of previous meta-analyses inherent to the use of aggregate data, we will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.Methods and analysisTo assess the benefits and risks of hydrocortisone, with or without fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock, we will search major electronic databases from inception to September 2020 (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), complimented by a search for unpublished trials. The primary analysis will compare hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone to placebo or no treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Secondary analyses will compare hydrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), and hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days. We will conduct both one-stage IPDMA using mixed-effect models and machine learning with targeted maximum likelihood analyses. We will assess the risk of bias related to unshared data and related to the quality of individual trial.Ethics and disseminationThis IPDMA will use existing data from completed randomised clinical trials and will comply with the ethical and regulatory requirements regarding data sharing for each of the component trials. The findings of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal with straightforward policy for open access.Prospero registration numberCRD42017062198.
3 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90‐day mortality than placebo and there were no significant between‐group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the Recurrence of mechanical ventilation.
Abstract: Background Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. Methods We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Results From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia. Conclusions Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .).
575 citations
••
Copenhagen University Hospital1, Homi Bhabha National Institute2, Apollo Hospitals3, Karolinska Institutet4, Aalborg University5, University of Bern6, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences7, Odense University Hospital8, Linköping University9, Bombay Hospital, Indore10, Apollo Hospital, Indraprastha11, Frederiksberg Hospital12, Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre13, The George Institute for Global Health14, Royal North Shore Hospital15, Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom16, University of Southern Denmark17, University of Copenhagen18
TL;DR: In this article, the effects of 12 mg vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia were evaluated in a randomized clinical trial at 26 hospitals in Europe and India.
Abstract: Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.
119 citations
••
University of Bologna1, Başkent University2, University of Belgrade3, Koç University4, Medical University of Graz5, Ciba Specialty Chemicals6, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland7, University of Verona8, Semmelweis University9, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens10, Radboud University Nijmegen11, University of Seville12
TL;DR: The ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMIDs Executive Committee in 2019 and a small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call as discussed by the authors.
74 citations
••
TL;DR: The ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMIDS Executive Committee as mentioned in this paper , and a small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call.
74 citations
••
TL;DR: This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae and the role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up.
Abstract: Evidence shows that a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 experiences long-term consequences of the disease, but the predisposing factors are poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization associated with an increased risk of exhibiting new or persisting symptoms (Post-COVID-19 Syndrome, PCS). MedLine and WebOfScience were last searched on 30 September 2021. We included English language clinical trials and observational studies investigating prognostic factors for PCS in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19, reporting at least one individual prospective follow-up of minimum 12 weeks. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, which was judged generally moderate. Risk factors were included in the analysis if their association with PCS was investigated by at least two studies. To summarize the prognostic effect of each factor (or group of factors), odds ratios were estimated using raw data. Overall, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 13,340 patients. Associations were statistically significant for two factors: female sex with any symptoms (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27–1.82), with mental health symptoms (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29) and with fatigue (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32–1.79); acute disease severity with respiratory symptoms (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03–2.68). The I² statistics tests were calculated to quantify the degree of study heterogeneity. This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae. The role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up. Identifying populations at greatest risk for PCS can enable the development of targeted prevention and management strategies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253467.
64 citations