Abstract

BACKGROUND Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES We aim to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in comparison to all the available treatments in the management of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library till June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), analyzing the efficacy and safety of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score (VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using MetaInsight. Available treatment methods in the network were ranking based on the p-score approach. The quality of results from network analysis was appraised with Cochrane's CINeMA approach. RESULTS 25 RCTs with 2040 patients were included in the network analysis. Compared to saline control, only leucocyte-rich PRP resulted in significant pain relief (WMD -14.8 95% CI [-23.18,-6.39]; low confidence) on network analysis of VAS outcome compared to other treatment methods such as steroid, local anesthetic, laser, and surgery. Concerning functional outcome parameters such as DASH score or PRETEE score, none of the above-mentioned treatment methods were superior to saline control. On subgroup analysis of the outcomes at various time points, LR-PRP resulted in clinically significant improvement at all time points analyzed. Upon ranking the probabilities of being best of all the interventions analyzed in the network, leucocyte-rich PRP seems more promising with a p score of 0.415. CONCLUSION PRP therapy offers significant pain relief compared to saline control when employed in the management lateral epicondylitis. However, we did not note similar improvement in functional outcomes measures. With the available low-quality evidence, PRP is ranked to be the most promising therapy that needs further exploration. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to explore its usefulness in lateral epicondylitis.

Abstract

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis has associations with both thrombosis and diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH). Management of patients having coexistence of both thrombotic and hemorrhagic manifestations is challenging. Thrombotic conditions require anticoagulation, which can theoretically increase the risk of bleeding and thereby worsen DAH. In this review, we highlight the management of a patient of granulomatosis with polyangiitis with DAH who developed deep vein thrombosis. A systematic review of the literature was also performed summarizing and discussing the issues pertaining to the management of such patients.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Packed red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is frequently used in patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) because retrospective data suggest that anemic patients may respond sub-optimally to RT. No high-quality evidence currently exists to guide transfusion practices and establish hemoglobin (Hb) transfusion thresholds for this patient population, and practice varies significantly across centers. This systematic review investigated whether maintaining higher Hb via transfusion in radiation oncology patients leads to improved outcomes. METHODS We performed a literature search of studies comparing RBC transfusion thresholds in radiation oncology patients. Included studies assessed patients receiving RT for malignancy of any diagnosis or stage. Excluded studies did not evaluate Hb or transfusion as an intervention or outcome. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included locoregional control, number of transfusions and adverse events. RESULTS One study met inclusion criteria. The study pooled results from two randomized controlled trials that stratified anemic patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to RBC transfusion versus no transfusion. The study found no significant differences in overall survival or locoregional control after five years, despite increased Hb levels in the transfused group. We conducted a narrative review by extracting data from 10 non-comparative studies involving transfusion in patients receiving RT. Results demonstrated no consistent conclusions regarding whether transfusions improve or worsen outcomes. CONCLUSIONS There is a lack of data on the effects of RBC transfusion on outcomes in patients undergoing RT. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in this area.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To present consensus statements and supporting literature for plasma and platelet product variables and related laboratory testing for transfusions in general critically ill children from the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding. DESIGN Systematic review and consensus conference of international, multidisciplinary experts in platelet and plasma transfusion management of critically ill children. SETTING Not applicable. PATIENTS Critically ill pediatric patients at risk of bleeding and receiving plasma and/or platelet transfusions. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A panel of 10 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was insufficient, expert-based statements for laboratory testing and blood product attributes for platelet and plasma transfusions. These statements were reviewed and ratified by the 29 Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative - Control/Avoidance of Bleeding experts. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception to December 2020. Consensus was obtained using the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. We developed five expert consensus statements and two recommendations in answer to two questions: what laboratory tests and physiologic triggers should guide the decision to administer a platelet or plasma transfusion in critically ill children; and what product attributes are optimal to guide specific product selection? CONCLUSIONS The Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding program provides some guidance and expert consensus for the laboratory and blood product attributes used for decision-making for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill pediatric patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Therapeutic apheresis has been used in treating hematological and non-hematological diseases. For a successful procedure, efficient vascular access is required. Presently, peripheral venous access (PVA), central venous catheterization (CVC), implantable ports, and arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are used. This review aims to evaluate different type of access and their pros and cons to help physicians determine the best venous access. METHODS The electronic search included PubMed and Google Scholar up to Nov. 2020. The Mesh terms were apheresis, peripheral catheterization, central catheterization, and arteriovenous fistula. RESULTS A total of 228 studies were found through database searching. Two independent authors reviewed the articles using their titles and abstracts; 88 articles were selected and the full text was reviewed. Finally, 25 were included. The inclusion criteria were studies incorporating patients with any indication for apheresis. CONCLUSION PVA has been promoted in recent years in many centers across the United States to lower the rate of complications associated with vascular access and to make this procedure more accessible. Several factors are involved in selecting appropriate venous access, such as the procedure's duration and frequency, patient's vascular anatomy, and staff's experience. In short-term procedures, temporary vascular access like PVA or CVC is preferred. Permanent vascular access such as AVF, tunneled cuffed central lines, and implantable ports are more beneficial in prolonged treatment period but each patient has to be evaluated individually by apheresis team for the most appropriate method.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Premature neonates have a high risk of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) at birth, the blood products of which activate inflammatory cascades that can cause hydrocephalus and long-term neurological morbidities and sequelae. However, there is no consensus for one treatment strategy. While the mainstay of treatment involves CSF diversion to reduce intracranial pressure, a number of interventions focus on blood product removal at various stages including extraventricular drains (EVD), intra-ventricular thrombolytics, drainage-irrigation-fibrinolytic therapy (DRIFT), and neuroendoscopic lavage (NEL). METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risks and benefits commonly associated with active blood product removal treatment strategies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases through Dec 2020 for articles reporting on outcomes of EVDs, thrombolytics, DRIFT, and NEL. Outcomes of interest were rate of conversion to ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS), infection, mortality, secondary hemorrhage, and cognitive disability. RESULTS Of the 10,398 articles identified in the search, 23 full-text articles representing 22 cohorts and 530 patients were included for meta-analysis. These articles included retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled studies on the use of EVDs (n = 7), thrombolytics (n = 8), DRIFT therapy (n = 3), and NEL (n = 5). Pooled rates of reported outcomes for EVD, thrombolytics, DRIFT, and NEL for ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placement were 51.1%, 43.3%, 34.3%, and 54.8%; for infection, 15.4%, 12.5%, 4.7%, and 11.0%; for mortality, 20.0%, 11.6%, 6.0%, and 4.9%; for secondary hemorrhage, 5.8%, 7.8%, 20.0%, and 6.9%; for cognitive impairment, 52.6%, 50.0%, 53.7%, and 50.9%. Meta-regression using type of treatment as a categorical covariate showed no effect of treatment modality on rate of VPS conversion or cognitive disability. CONCLUSION There was a significant effect of treatment modality on secondary hemorrhage and mortality; however, mortality was no longer significant after adjusting for year of publication. Re-hemorrhage rate was significantly higher for DRIFT (p < 0.001) but did not differ among the other modalities. NEL also had lower mortality relative to EVD (p < 0.001) and thrombolytics (p = 0.013), which was no longer significant after adjusting for year of publication. Thus, NEL appears to be safer than DRIFT in terms of risk of hemorrhage, and not different than other blood-product removal strategies in terms of mortality. Outcomes-in terms of shunting and cognitive impairment-did not differ. Later year of publication was predictive of lower rates of mortality, but not the other outcome variables. Further prospective and randomized studies will be necessary to directly compare NEL with other temporizing procedures.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Tranexamic acid is widely available and used off-label in patients with bleeding traumatic injury, although the literature does not consistently agree on its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE To examine the association of tranexamic acid administration with mortality and thromboembolic events compared with no treatment or with placebo in patients with traumatic injury in the literature. DATA SOURCES On March 23, 2021, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published between 1986 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigating tranexamic acid administration compared with no treatment or placebo among patients with traumatic injury and traumatic brain injury who were 15 years or older were included. Included studies were published in English or German. The electronic search yielded 1546 records, of which 71 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The study followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and pooled using the inverse-variance random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes were formulated before data collection and included mortality at 24 hours and 28 and 30 days (1 month) as well as the incidence of thromboembolic events and the amount of blood products administered. Owing to missing data, overall mortality was added and the amount of blood products administered was discarded. RESULTS Thirty-one studies with a total of 43 473 patients were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that administration of tranexamic acid was associated with a significant decrease in 1-month mortality compared with the control cohort (risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.97]; I2 = 35%). The results of meta-analyses for 24-hour and overall mortality and thromboembolic events were heterogeneous and could not be pooled. Further investigations on clinical heterogeneity showed that populations with trauma and trial conditions differed markedly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that tranexamic acid may be beneficial in various patient populations with trauma. However, reasonable concerns about potential thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid remain.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 presents with similar symptomatology and therapeutic approach to Kawasaki disease in the pediatric population. Given the novelty of the disease and the growing scientific literature on the subject, it is relevant to collect and report available scientific information. This review aimed to explore the medical evidence on multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 in a population under 18 years of age. METHODS We conducted a scoping review using Scopus and PubMed, including observational (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional) studies and case series. RESULTS Of the total articles reviewed as of April 10, 2021, 45 articles met eligibility criteria: case series (n = 32), retrospective cohort studies (n = 6), prospective cohort studies (n = 4), case-control studies (n = 2), and cross-sectional studies (n = 1). Gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms and myocardial dysfunction are the most commonly reported. The most relevant paraclinical markers were lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated D-dimer levels. CONCLUSIONS The multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 presents a broad spectrum of signs and symptoms. Aneurysms of the coronary arteries and myocarditis are usually present in the acute phases of the disease. The early diagnosis led by a multidisciplinary group of pediatric intensivists, infectious disease specialists, cardiologists, and rheumatologists allows adequate and effective medical management.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Edema is one of the cardinal clinical features of nephrotic syndrome (NS). It may vary from mild periorbital edema to severe generalized edema (anasarca). In patients where edema does not improve with prednisone therapy, the most common supportive medications are diuretics and albumin. However, due to the complex pathophysiology of edema formation in NS patients resulting in intravascular normovolemia or hypovolemia, optimal therapy for edema is still debated. We conducted a systematic review with the objective of evaluating the change in urine volume and urine sodium excretion after treatment with furosemide only versus furosemide with albumin in edematous patients with NS. OBJECTIVES (1) To evaluate efficacy of furosemide alone versus furosemide with albumin in the treatment of nephrotic edema in adults and children. (2) To compare the harms and benefits of different doses of furosemide for treating nephrotic edema. SEARCH METHODS The search included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in English and French using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface. ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all RCTs and randomized cross-over studies in which furosemide and furosemide plus albumin are used in the treatment of children or adults with nephrotic edema. We excluded patients with hypoalbuminemia of non-renal origin and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate below 30 ml/min/1.74 m(2) and patients with congenital NS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All abstracts were independently assessed by at least two authors to determine which studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on study design, methodology, and outcome data (urine volume, urine sodium excretion, adverse effects) from each identified study was entered into a separate data sheet. The differences in outcomes between the types of therapy were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS The search yielded 525 records, and after screening, five studies were included in the systematic review and four of those studies in the meta-analysis. One study had high risk of bias and the remaining three studies were deemed to have some concerns. Urine excretion was greater after treatment with furosemide and albumin versus furosemide (SMD 0.85, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.38). Results for sodium excretion were inconclusive (SMD 0.37, 95%CI =  - 0.28 to 1.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The current evidence is not sufficient to make definitive conclusions about the role of albumin in treating nephrotic edema. High-quality randomized studies with adequate samples sizes are needed. Including an assessment of intravascular volume status may be helpful. TRIAL REGISTRATION Prospero: CRD4201808979. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.