Abstract

OBJECTIVES One of the treatment modalities that can be used for hyperleukocytosis is leukapheresis. However, the result of studies showing the benefit of early mortality through the use of leukapheresis versus no leukapheresis is still inconclusive. Hence, we aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the effect of leukapheresis on early mortality in AML patients with hyperleukocytosis. METHODS We conducted a literature search on five databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Clinicalkey, and JSTOR) up to October 2021 for studies comparing early mortality outcomes between hyperleukocytosis AML patients treated with leukapheresis versus no leukapheresis. Summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity tests were presented in I(2) value and publication bias was analyzed using a funnel plot. RESULTS Eleven retrospective cohort studies were eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in early mortality between patients receiving leukapheresis and not receiving leukapheresis in studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of 95,000/mm(3) or 100,000/mm(3) (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.74-1.86; p: 0.50; I(2): 0%). Similarly, studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of 50,000/mm(3) also showed no benefits of early mortality (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.43-1.05; p: 0.08; I(2): 0%). Most of the studies used had a moderate risk of bias due to being observational studies. Funnel plot showed an indication of publication bias on studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of ≥50,000/mm(3). CONCLUSION The use of leukapheresis does not provide early mortality benefit in adult AML patients with hyperleukocytosis.

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

BACKGROUND The exact prevalence of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Adults (MIS-A) is largely unknown. Vague and multiple definitions and treatment options often add to the confusion on how to label the diagnosis with certainty. OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to determine the demographic profile, clinical presentation, laboratory findings and outcomes of MIS-A in COVID-19. METHODS A systematic review was conducted after registering with PROSPERO. Multiple databases were systematically searched to encompass studies characterizing MIS-A from 1st January 2020 up to 31st August 2021. The inclusion criteria were- to incorporate all published or in press peer-reviewed articles reporting cases of MIS-A. We accepted the following types of studies: case reports, case-control, case series, cross-sectional studies and letters to the editors that incorporated clinical, laboratory, imaging, as well as the hospital course of MIS-A patients. The exclusion criteria for the review were- articles not in English, only abstracts published, no data on MIS-A and articles which have focus on COVID-19, and not MIS-A. Two independent authors screened the articles, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS A total of 53 articles were included in this review with a sample size of 79 cases. Majority of the patients were males (73.4%) with mean age of 31.67±10.02 years. Fever (100%) and skin rash (57.8%) were the two most common presenting symptoms. Echocardiographic data was available for 73 patients of whom 41 (73.2%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Cardiovascular system was most frequently involved (81%) followed by gastrointestinal (73.4%) and mucocutaneous (51.9%) involvement. Anti-inflammatory therapies used in treatment included steroids (60.2%), intravenous immunoglobulin (37.2%) and biologics (10.2%). Mean duration of the hospital stay was 11.67±8.08 days. Data regarding the outcomes was available for all 79 subjects of whom 4 (5.1%) died during course of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS Emergence of MIS-A calls for further large-scale studies to establish standard case definitions and definite treatment guidelines.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the value of intrauterine platelet-rich concentrates among patients with intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. METHODS Four different databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science) were searched for the available studies from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared platelet-rich concentrates in the intervention group versus no injection of platelet-rich concentrates in the control group among women with intrauterine adhesions after operative hysteroscopy. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcomes were the adhesion score and incidence of recurrence of severe intrauterine adhesions postoperatively. Our secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate, menstrual flow duration in days, and menstrual flow amount (number of pads). RESULTS Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 329 patients. We found that platelet-rich concentrates were linked to a significant reduction in the postoperative adhesion score (MD = -1.00, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.32], p = 0.004). Moreover, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of severe IUAs recurrence among the platelet-rich concentrates group (7.6%) compared to the control group (23.4%) after hysteroscopy (p = 0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was significantly increased among the platelet-rich concentrates group (37.1%) in comparison with the control group (20.7%) after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (p = 0.008). There were significant improvements in the menstrual flow duration and amount among the platelet-rich concentrates group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Intrauterine placement of platelet-rich concentrates is an effective method for the treatment of intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. PURPOSE To systematically compare the pain relief, functional improvement and successful rates on treatment of two different types of PRP, by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection. METHODS The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from inception to August 2021 by terms of lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP. PRP involved in present study were divided into leukocyte-poor PRP and leukocyte-rich PRP groups according to different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included characteristics of the subjects, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, successful rate and safety of treatment of short-term and long-term follow-up. RESULTS A total of 33 studies included 2420 LE patients. There were 19 studies with LP-PRP, 13 studies with LR-PRP and 1 study involved both LP-PRP and LR-PRP. Patients had significant improved clinical outcomes post-treatment compared to pre-treatment in both groups of PRP. The mean of VAS was ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before the treatment, 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term and 0.6 to 3.3 at the long-term follow-up in LR-PRP group. The mean of VAS was ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before the treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term and 0.7 to 2.7 in the long-term follow-up in LP-PRP group. The DASH score of LR-PRP and LP-PRP were ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7 separately before the treatment and 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0 separately at long-term follow-up. LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups reflected successful rate ranged from 70%-100% and 36%-100% respectively. The complication rate lower in LP-PRP group (3.9%) than LR-PRP group (6.4%), with the major complication was temporary pain after PRP treatment (P = 0.029). CONCLUSION PRP treatment demonstrated a significant improvement with pain relief and functional improvement on lateral epicondylitis regardless types of PRP. There was no significant difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in pain relief and functional improvement. The major complication was temporary pain after PRP injection and the complication rate in LP-PRP was lower than LR-PRP.

Abstract

Introduction; Pulmonary fibrosis is a frequently reported COVID-19 sequela in which the exact prevalence and risk factors are yet to be established. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the prevalence of post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (PCPF) and the potential risk factors. Methods; CINAHL, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify English language studies published up to December 3, 2021. Results; The systematic search initially revealed a total of 618 articles - of which only 13 studies reporting 2018 patients were included in this study. Among the patients, 1047 (51.9%) were male and 971 (48.1%) were female. The mean age was 54.5 years (15-94). The prevalence of PCPF was 44.9%. The mean age was 59 years in fibrotic patients and 48.5 years in non-fibrotic patients. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was the only comorbidity associated with PCPF. Fibrotic patients more commonly suffered from persistent symptoms of dyspnea, cough, chest pain, fatigue, and myalgia (p-value < 0.05). Factors related to COVID-19 severity that were associated with PCPF development included computed tomography score of ≥18, ICU admission, invasive/non-invasive mechanical ventilation, longer hospitalization period, and steroid, antibiotic and immunoglobulin treatments (p-value < 0.05). Parenchymal bands (284/341), ground-glass opacities (552/753), interlobular septal thickening (220/381), and consolidation (197/319) were the most common lung abnormalities found in fibrotic patients. Conclusion, About 44.9% of COVID-19 survivors appear to have developed pulmonary fibrosis. Factors related to COVID-19 severity were significantly associated with PCPF development.

Abstract

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a fatal and debilitating condition killing 2.7 million people each year worldwide. The most commonly used treatment modality for AIS is intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase which is indicated for those presenting within 4.5 h of onset. Due to a lack of reliable evidence on harm or benefit, the 2019 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines consider a history of previous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) as potentially harmful and no longer an absolute contraindication for IVT in patients with AIS, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed chronic ICH as a specific contraindication for IVT from the label in 2015. Despite a shift in guidelines, physicians frequently face the dilemmatic choice whether to administer IVT in this subset of patients due to the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH). The benefit of IVT in such patients has not been thoroughly investigated, and there are only a few studies on the subject in the literature to date. We conducted the present meta-analysis in an aim to provide solid evidence on the efficacy and safety of IVT for treating AIS in patients with a history of remote ICH. Our meta-analysis found that IVT improves functional outcomes in AIS patients with prior remote ICH without increasing SICH or all-cause mortality. These findings may contribute to the decision-making process for IVT administration in AIS patients.

Abstract

The crystalloid fluid of choice in sepsis remains debatable. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the effect of balanced crystalloids (BC) vs. normal saline (NS) in adults with sepsis. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences databases through 22 January 2022, was performed for studies that compared BC vs. NS in adults with sepsis. Our outcomes included mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU length of stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a random-effect model. Fifteen studies involving 20,329 patients were included. Overall, BC showed a significant reduction in the overall mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.96), 28/30-day mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95), and AKI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93) but similar 90-day mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.03), need for RRT (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76-1.08), and ICU LOS (MD -0.25 days, 95% CI -3.44, 2.95), were observed between the two groups. However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.02), AKI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06), and need for RRT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36-1.41). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that overall BC was associated with reduced mortality and AKI in sepsis compared to NS among patients with sepsis. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no significant differences in both overall mortality and AKI between the groups. There was no significant difference in the need for RRT or ICU LOS between BC and NS. Pending further data, our study supports using BC over NS for fluid resuscitation in adults with sepsis. Further large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate our findings.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that inspected the efficacy and safety of prophylactic TXA compared with control (placebo/no treatment) among women undergoing vaginal delivery on reducing postpartum blood loss and related morbidities. METHODS Six databases were screened from inception until 06-December-2021. The pooled data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio, respectively, with 95% confidence interval in a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS Sixteen studies comprising 17 RCT treatment arms were included. There were 7075 patients; 3548 and 2537 patients were allocated to prophylactic TXA and control groups, respectively. Overall, the included RCTs had a low risk of bias. Prophylactic TXA correlated with a significant decrease in mean postpartum blood loss and mean change in hemoglobin/hematocrit. Moreover, prophylactic TXA was linked to decreased incidence rates of postpartum hemorrhage, need for blood transfusion, and need for additional uterotonic agents. Nevertheless, prophylactic TXA culminated in significantly higher incidence rates of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, all of which were well-tolerated. There was no increased risk of thromboembolic events. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of efficacy endpoints. There was no publication bias for the endpoint of mean postpartum blood loss. CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing vaginal delivery, prophylactic TXA during active management of third stage of labor (AMTSL) appeared largely safe and correlated with a significant decrease in postpartum blood loss and related morbidities compared with control intervention. Prophylactic TXA should be integrated as a "formal" component of AMTSL among women undergoing vaginal delivery.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Different prophylactic and episodic clotting factor treatments are used in the management of hemophilia. A summarize of the evidence is needed inform decision-making. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. METHODS We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 2020, which compared different factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021225857). RESULTS Nine RCTs were included in this review, of which six compared episodic with prophylactic treatment, all of them performed in patients with hemophilia A. Pooled results showed that, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (ratio of means [RM]: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.36), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13). With significant difference between these subgroups (p = 0.003, I2 = 82.9%). In addition, compared to the episodic treatment group, the annualized joint bleeding rate was lower in the low-dose prophylactic group (RM: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.43), intermediate-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.27), and high-dose prophylactic group (RM of 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.16). Without significant subgroup differences. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes according to GRADE methodology. The other studies compared different types of clotting factor concentrates (CFCs), assessed pharmacokinetic prophylaxis, or compared different frequencies of medication administration. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that prophylactic treatment (at either low, intermediate, or high doses) is superior to episodic treatment for bleeding prevention. In patients with hemophilia A, the bleeding rate seems to have a dose-response effect. However, no study compared different doses of prophylactic treatment, and all results had a very low certainty of the evidence. Thus, future studies are needed to confirm these results and inform decision making.