Search

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To define the role of HDT followed by autoSCT in the treatment of MTCL in adults (≥18 years of age), particularly with respect to its efficacy and safety as a first‐line therapy, and secondarily for its efficacy and safety as a salvage option.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To define the role of alloSCT in the treatment of MTCL in adults (≥18 years of age), particularly with respect to its efficacy and safety as a first‐line therapy, and secondarily for its efficacy and safety as a salvage option.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the duration of natural antibody‐related immunity after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, measured as IgG, using a living systematic review approach. INVESTIGATION OF SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY BETWEEN STUDIES: IgG measurements may be dependent on the respective test used; therefore we will completely separate serological assays from neutralisation assays. We will investigate whether studies that differ regarding the specific type of test, disease severity, age, gender, comorbidities, or virus mutation have varying IgG outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53 We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy. Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants may respond differently to the identified interventions. Such interventions must address health literacy either as a comprehensive construct or at least one of its four health information processing steps (access, understand, appraise, apply). However, we do not aim to equate general health literacy interventions that include a range of activities targeted to all of the four health information processing steps with interventions that aim to improve only one step (e.g. understand). We aim instead to create a comprehensive picture of the effect of health literacy interventions by applying the integrated model as an umbrella framework for a deductive analysis of the four steps of health information processing. We will not restrict this review to specific settings or diseases because we aim to provide an overview of all available interventions for improving health literacy addressing migrant populations. Extending this review with a qualitative evidence synthesis The author team of this effectiveness review will conduct a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) in parallel: Gender differences in health literacy of migrants: a synthesis of qualitative evidence (Aldin 2019). Since we expect that relatively few studies will explicitly aim to explore if female and male migrants respond differently to a selected health literacy intervention, or even contain data on female and male migrants that can be extracted separately, the QES will supplement the effectiveness review in terms of gender‐specific aspects that can affect the health information processing steps. Additionally, it will attempt to identify factors associated with gender and migration that may play a role in the design, delivery and effectiveness of health literacy interventions for female and male migrants, as it may be able to identify other relevant determinants that cannot be explored by quantitative methods. The QES will be linked to the effectiveness review by using the conceptual framework of health literacy developed by Sørensen 2012. The synthesised evidence from the effectiveness review and the linked QES will ultimately validate the applicability of the integrated model by Sørensen 2012 in interventions for improving health literacy in migrants. On the basis of the joint results, we will develop a logic model that includes the identified factors that must to be taken into account in the development and delivery of health literacy interventions for female and male migrants. The author teams will continuously exchange on methodological issues and support each other within the review process.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Qualitative). The objectives are as follows: The overall objective of this QES is to explore and explain probable gender differences in the health literacy of migrants. Exploring possible gender differences in the context of migration will supplement the linked effectiveness review by providing a comprehensive understanding of the role that any gender differences may play in the development, delivery, and ultimately, the effectiveness of interventions for improving the health literacy of female and male migrants. This QES has the following specific objectives. To explore whether gender differences in the health literacy of migrants exist. To identify factors that may underlie gender differences in the four steps of health information processing (access, understand, appraise and apply). To explore and explain gender differences potentially found ‐ or not found ‐ in the effectiveness of health literacy interventions assessed by the linked effectiveness review. To explain ‐ in a third synthesis ‐ to what extent gender and migration‐specific factors may play a role in the development and delivery of health literacy interventions.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANK‐ligand (RANKL)‐inhibitors for supportive treatment in prostate cancer with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objectives are to systematically review the effect of intravenous iron or no iron in combination with erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents (ESAs) on the prevention or alleviation of anaemic cancer patients and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of nivolumab in adult individuals with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The main objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose cytarabine for patients with MDS.

Background There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen. Objectives To provide an evidence-based answer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD. Search methods We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to November 2010) and EMBASE (1985 to November 2008). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared to chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL. Data collection and analysis Effect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression. Relative risks were used to analyse complete response rate, treatment-related mortality and adverse events. Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed quality of trials. Main results A total of 790 records were screened. Five eligible trials (four published, one ongoing), were identified. These trials included only adult patients (16 to 60 years of age). Four trials with 2868 patients were included in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials from Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials from Italy. All trials reported results for PFS and OS. PFS was statistically significantly longer for escalated BEACOPP: HR was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.64, I2 = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the comparators: HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.09, I2 = 0%). Three trials reported adverse events: the escalated BEACOPP regimens caused statistically significantly more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV (anaemia P < 0.00001, neutropenia P = 0.007, thrombocytopenia P < 0.00001), infections (P < 0.00001)) and occurrence of myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (P = 0.05). There were no differences between both regimens for secondary malignancies, treatment-related mortality or infertility. Authors' conclusions This meta-analysis showed that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable or advanced stage HL benefited from chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP regarding PFS, but there was no significant difference in OS. Longer follow-up and the inclusion of the EORTC 20012 trial will lead to a more definitive answer with respect to OS.