IMPORTANCE Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).DATA SOURCES PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. STUDY SELECTIONThe RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISTwo reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAll-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events.RESULTS A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was −1.21% (95% CI, −5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was −2.56% [95% CI, −13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCETreatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

The disclosure of proven cardiorenal benefits with certain antidiabetic agents was supposed to herald a new era in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially for the many patients with T2D who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events. However, as the evidence in favour of various sodium–glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) accumulates, prescriptions of these agents continue to stagnate, even among eligible, at-risk patients. By contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) DPP-4i remain more widely used than SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in these patients, despite a similar cost to SGLT2i and a large body of evidence showing no clear benefit on cardiorenal outcomes. We are a group of diabetologists united by a shared concern that clinical inertia is preventing these patients from receiving life-saving treatments, as well as placing them at greater risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease. We propose a manifesto for change, in order to increase uptake of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in appropriate patients as a matter of urgency, especially those who could be readily switched from an agent without proven cardiorenal benefit. Central to our manifesto is a shift from linear treatment algorithms based on HbA1c target setting to parallel, independent considerations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure and renal risks, in accordance with newly updated guidelines. Finally, we call upon all colleagues to play their part in implementing our manifesto at a local level, ensuring that patients do not pay a heavy price for continued clinical inertia in T2D.

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) are a hallmark of the immune response in inflammatory diseases. However, the role of NETs in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is unknown. This study aims to characterise the impact of NETs on clinical outcomes in pneumonia.This is a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled, multicentre trial. Patients with CAP were randomly assigned to either 50 mg prednisone or placebo for 7 days. The primary end-point was time to clinical stability; main secondary end-points were length of hospital stay and mortality.In total, 310 patients were included in the analysis. Levels of cell-free nucleosomes as surrogate markers of NETosis were significantly increased at admission and declined over 7 days. NETs were significantly associated with reduced hazards of clinical stability and hospital discharge in multivariate adjusted analyses. Moreover, NETs were associated with a 3.8-fold increased adjusted odds ratio of 30-day mortality. Prednisone treatment modified circulatory NET levels and was associated with beneficial outcome.CAP is accompanied by pronounced NET formation. Patients with elevated serum NET markers were at higher risk for clinical instability, prolonged length of hospital stay and 30-day all-cause mortality. NETs represent a novel marker for outcome and a possible target for adjunct treatments of pneumonia.

BackgroundTreatment options to address the hyponatremia induced by the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuresis (SIAD) are inadequate. The sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin promotes osmotic diuresis via urinary glucose excretion and therefore, might offer a novel treatment option for SIAD.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomized trial, we recruited 88 hospitalized patients with SIAD-induced hyponatremia <130 mmol/L at the University Hospital Basel from September 2016 until January 2019 and assigned patients to receive, in addition to standard fluid restriction of <1000 ml/24 h, a once-daily dose of oral empagliflozin or placebo for 4 days. The primary end point was the absolute change in plasma sodium concentration after 4 days of treatment. Secondary end points included predisposing factors for treatment response and safety of the intervention.ResultsOf the 87 patients who completed the trial, 43 (49%) received treatment with empagliflozin, and 44 (51%) received placebo. Baseline plasma sodium concentrations were similar for the two groups (median 125.5 mmol/L for the empaflozin group and median 126 mmol/L for the placebo group). Patients treated with empagliflozin had a significantly higher increase of median plasma sodium concentration compared with those receiving placebo (10 versus 7 mmol/L, respectively; P=0.04). Profound hyponatremia (<125 mmol/L) and lower baseline osmolality levels increased the likelihood of response to treatment with empagliflozin. Treatment was well tolerated, and no events of hypoglycemia or hypotension occurred among those receiving empagliflozin.ConclusionsAmong hospitalized patients with SIAD treated with fluid restriction, those who received empagliflozin had a larger increase in plasma sodium levels compared with those who received placebo. This finding indicates that empagliflozin warrants further study as a treatment for the disorder.