Abstract

BACKGROUND For most viral encephalitides, therapy is merely supportive. Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) have been used as a prophylactic and therapeutic approach. We conduct a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of IVIG in viral encephalitis. METHODS We conducted a systematic review assessing PubMed, Cochrane Database, Biosis Previews and the ClinicalTrials.gov website to identify all reports on patients with viral encephalitis treated with IVIG as of May 31, 2019. The main outcomes assessed were therapeutic efficacy and safety. For an increased homogeneity of the population, atypical viral infections were excluded, as were reports on prophylactic IVIG use, intrathecal application of immunoglobulins, or use of antibody-enriched IVIG-preparations. Data were extracted from published studies. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS We included a total of 44 studies (39 case reports). The case reports cover a total of 53 patients. Our search retrieved two prospective and three retrospective studies. These show heterogeneous results as to the efficacy of IVIG therapy. Only one study reports a significant association between IVIG-use and death (odds ratio 0.032; 95% confidence interval 0.0033-0.3024; p = 0.0027). None of the studies report significant differences in the number of serious adverse events. CONCLUSION Data on the efficacy of IVIG-therapy is heterogeneous. While it seems generally safe, evident superiority compared to supportive treatment has not been demonstrated so far. Future trials should also investigate the optimal dosing and timing of IVIG and their benefit in the immunosuppressed.

Abstract

Background: Trophic ulcers secondary to leprosy pose a great stigma to patients and remain a challenge to the treating dermatologists. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) introduces growth factors directly into the wound and aids in rapid healing. The role of PRP in the treatment of trophic ulcers in leprosy patients has not yet been established by randomized controlled trials. Aims: To study the effectiveness and safety of autologous PRP therapy with total contact casting versus total contact casting alone in the treatment of trophic ulcers in leprosy. Methods: In an observer-blind, randomized (1:1) controlled study, 118 patients were enrolled. PRP was prepared by the manual double-spin method (1600 rpm for 10 min followed by 4000 rpm for 10 min). After wound bed preparation, activated PRP was injected intra- and perilesionally, and platelet-poor plasma gel was applied over the ulcer bed. Occlusive dressings and total contact casting were then applied in Group A, and only total contact casting was applied in Group B. The same procedure was repeated every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Results: In all, 56 patients were analyzable in Group A and 52 in Group B. The surface area of the ulcer decreased significantly from first follow-up onward in both the groups (P < 0.001 in both the groups). Intergroup comparison showed that the reduction in the surface area of the ulcer was significantly more in Group A than in Group B from the first follow-up onward (P = 0.038) and the difference was maintained till the fifth follow-up (P < 0.001). At the end of the study, 91.10 +/- 9.65% ulcer surface area reduction had occurred in Group A, whereas it was 79.77 +/- 17.91% in Group B (P < 0.001). Trophic ulcers healed completely more often in paucibacillary leprosy patients (P < 0.001) and in those with a lower initial surface area of the ulcer (P < 0.001). Limitation: Short duration of treatment (8 weeks). Conclusion: PRP combined with total contact casting accelerates the healing of trophic ulcers of leprosy and is more effective than total contact casting alone. Complete remission is more likely to occur when the duration and surface area of ulcer are less and in the paucibacillary spectrum.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as 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 continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS 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 trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, 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 immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies repo ted on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To compare topical GM-CSF and miltefosine (G + M) versus placebo and miltefosine (P + M) or parenteral meglumine antimoniate (MA) in the treatment of 150 patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) caused by Leishmania guyanensis in the Amazon. DESIGN A randomized and double-blinded clinical trial. RESULTS At 90 days after initiation of therapy the cure rates were 66%, 58% and 52% for the groups P + M, G + M, and MA respectively (p > 0.05). Cure rates at 180 days did not differ. Healing time was similar in the 3 groups, but faster in the MA group compared to the G + M group (p = 0.04). Mild and transitory systemic adverse events were frequent in all groups (above 85%). Nausea (85%) and vomiting (39%) predominated in the miltefosine groups; arthralgia (51%) and myalgia (48%) in the MA group. One patient (group MA) stopped treatment after presenting fever, exanthema, and severe arthralgia. CONCLUSIONS Miltefosine did not present a higher cure rate than MA, and the association of GM-CSF did not improve the therapeutic response. Nevertheless, due to its less toxicity, easier administration, and a similar cure rate when compared with MA, miltefosine should remain as one of the main drugs for treating CL due to L. guyanensis. (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03023111).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Transfusion transmitted babesiosis (TTB) has a high mortality rate but may go unrecognized, particularly in non-endemic areas. We therefore conducted a systematic review to better characterize clinical aspects of TTB. METHODS A literature search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL databases, from which 25 eligible articles describing 60 TTB patients met criteria for data extraction. RESULTS Symptom evaluation was provided for 25 implicated donors: 18/25 (72%) were asymptomatic while 7/25 (28%) had mild flu-like symptoms but were asymptomatic at time of donation. It was common for a single donor or donation to infect multiple patients. Where reported, species included B. microti - 54/60 (90%), B. duncani - 3/60 (5%), and B. divergens-like MO-1 - 1/60 (2%). Most TTB patients (44/60, 73%) resided in endemic states, while most TTB deaths 6/9 (67%) occurred in non-endemic states. Severity of hemolysis was proportional to degree of parasitemia. Mortality in our series was 9/60 (15%); most deaths occurred at extremes of the age spectrum: 6/9 non-survivors were aged >55 years, 2/9 were <1 year, only 1/9 was 2-54 years. Number of comorbidities was higher among non-survivors (median = 4) compared to survivors (median = 1). CONCLUSIONS All implicated donors (for which symptoms data were reported) resulting in TTB infections were asymptomatic at the time of donation, and it was common for a single donor or donation to infect multiple patients. Mortality of TTB appeared highest among those with more comorbidities and in non-endemic states. Heightened awareness of this diagnosis is key in its recognition.

Abstract

Available animal and cell line models have suggested that specific therapeutics might be effective in treating Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We conducted a systematic review of evidence for treatment with pharmacologic and supportive therapies. We developed a protocol and searched 5 databases for studies describing treatment of MERS and deaths in MERS patients. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed by using ROBINS-I tool. We retrieved 3,660 unique citations; 20 observational studies met eligibility, and we studied 13 therapies. Most studies were at serious or critical RoB; no studies were at low RoB. One study, at moderate RoB, showed reduced mortality rates in severe MERS patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; no other studies showed a significant lifesaving benefit to any treatment. The existing literature on treatments for MERS is observational and at moderate to critical RoB. Clinical trials are needed to guide treatment decisions.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Children who have been hospitalized with severe anemia in areas of Africa in which malaria is endemic have a high risk of readmission and death within 6 months after discharge. No prevention strategy specifically addresses this period. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, two-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in nine hospitals in Kenya and Uganda to determine whether 3 months of malaria chemoprevention could reduce morbidity and mortality after hospital discharge in children younger than 5 years of age who had been admitted with severe anemia. All children received standard in-hospital care for severe anemia and a 3-day course of artemether-lumefantrine at discharge. Two weeks after discharge, children were randomly assigned to receive dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (chemoprevention group) or placebo, administered as 3-day courses at 2, 6, and 10 weeks after discharge. Children were followed for 26 weeks after discharge. The primary outcome was one or more hospital readmissions for any reason or death from the time of randomization to 6 months after discharge. Conditional risk-set modeling for recurrent events was used to calculate hazard ratios with the use of the Prentice-Williams-Peterson total-time approach. RESULTS From May 2016 through May 2018, a total of 1049 children underwent randomization; 524 were assigned to the chemoprevention group and 525 to the placebo group. From week 3 through week 26, a total of 184 events of readmission or death occurred in the chemoprevention group and 316 occurred in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.78; P<0.001). The lower incidence of readmission or death in the chemoprevention group than in the placebo group was restricted to the intervention period (week 3 through week 14) (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.42) and was not sustained after that time (week 15 through week 26) (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.47). No serious adverse events were attributed to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. CONCLUSIONS In areas with intense malaria transmission, 3 months of postdischarge malaria chemoprevention with monthly dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in children who had recently received treatment for severe anemia prevented more deaths or readmissions for any reason after discharge than placebo. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02671175.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma administration may be of clinical benefit in patients with severe influenza, but reports on the efficacy of this therapy vary. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the administration of convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza. Healthcare databases were searched in February 2020. All records were screened against eligibility criteria, and the risks of bias were assessed. The primary outcome was the fatality rate. RESULTS A total of 2861 studies were retrieved and screened. Five eligible RCTs were identified. Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2·23; P = 0.87; I(2) = 35%), number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation. This treatment may have the possible benefits of increasing hemagglutination inhibition titers and reducing influenza B viral loads and cytokine levels. No serious adverse events were reported. The included studies were generally of high quality with a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS The administration of convalescent plasma appears safe but may not reduce the mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation in patients with severe influenza.

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to investigate the effects of human gamma globulin (HGG) on inflammation targets in children. A total of 80 children were randomly divided into observation and control group with 40 cases in each group. The control group was given comprehensive treatment while the observation group was treated with HGG. The time of disappearance of clinical signs and symptoms, time of improvement of pulmonary iconography, inflammatory indices, time and degree of improvement of lung function and adverse reactions were observed. The total effective rate in the observation group was 97.5% and significantly higher than control group (77.5%). The time of fever clearance, imaging improvement as well as cough and pulmonary rales disappearance in the observation group was shorter than control group. After treatment, the levels of inflammatory indicators such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reaction protein (CRP) in the observation group were lower than control group. No obvious abnormalities of urea nitrogen, creatinine, serum alanine amino transferase (ALT) and aspartate amino transferase (AST) were found in the two groups. Overall, HGG effectively shortened the course of RMPP, improved the cure rate, reduced the inflammatory reaction and promoted the recovery of lung function without obvious adverse reaction.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Infection with influenza virus causes substantial morbidity and mortality globally, although antiviral treatments are available. Previous studies have suggested that anti-influenza immune plasma could be beneficial as treatment, but they were not designed as randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials. Therefore, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-titre immune plasma compared with standard low-titre plasma to improve outcomes in patients with severe influenza A infection. METHODS We did this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 41 US medical centres to assess the efficacy of high-titre anti-influenza plasma (haemagglutination inhibition antibody titre ≥1:80) compared with low-titre plasma (≤1:10). Children and adults with PCR-confirmed influenza A infection, a National Early Warning score of 3 or greater, and onset of illness within 6 days before randomisation were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of high-titre plasma (high-titre group) or low-titre plasma (low-titre group), and were followed up for 28 days from randomisation. High-titre and low-titre plasma had the same appearance. Randomisation was stratified by severity (in intensive care unit, not in intensive care but requiring supplemental oxygen, or not in intensive care and not requiring supplemental oxygen) and age (<18 years and ≥18 years). All participants, site staff, and the study team were masked to treatment allocation until after the final database lock. The primary endpoint was clinical status assessed by a six-point ordinal scale on day 7 (death, in intensive care, hospitalised but requiring supplemental oxygen, hospitalised not requiring supplemental oxygen, discharged but unable to resume normal activities, and discharged with full resumption of normal activities) analysed in a proportional odds model (an odds ratio [OR] >1 indicates improvement in clinical status across all categories for the high-titre vs the low-titre group). The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, excluding two participants who did not receive plasma. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02572817. FINDINGS Participants were recruited between Jan 26, 2016, and April 19, 2018. Of 200 participants enrolled (177 adults and 23 children), 140 met the criteria for randomisation and were assigned to the high-titre group (n=92) or to the control low-titre group (n=48). One participant from each group did not receive plasma. At baseline, 60 (43%) of 138 participants were in intensive care and 55 (71%) of 78 participants who were not in intensive care required oxygen. 93% of planned plasma infusions were completed. The study was terminated in July, 2018, when independent efficacy analysis showed low conditional power to detect an effect of high-titre plasma even if full accrual (150 participants) was achieved. The proportional OR for improved clinical status on day 7 was 1.22 (95% CI 0.65-2.29, p=0.54). 47 (34%) of 138 participants experienced 88 serious adverse events: 32 (35%) with 60 events in the high-titre group and 15 (32%) with 28 events in the low-titre group. The most common serious adverse events were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; four [4%] vs two [4%]), allergic transfusion reactions (two [2%] vs two [4%]), and respiratory distress (three [3%] vs none). 65 (47%) participants experienced 183 adverse events: 42 (46%) with 126 events in the high-titre group and 23 (49%) with 57 events in the low-titre group. The most common adverse events were anaemia (four [3%] vs two [4%]) and ARDS (four [3%] vs three [5%]). Ten patients died during the study (six [7%] in the high-titre group vs four [9%] in the low-titre group, p=0.73). The most common cause of death was worsening of acute respiratory distress syndrome (two [2%] vs two [4%] patients). INTERPRETATION High-titre anti-influenza plasma conferred no significant benefit over non-immune plasma. Although our study did not have the precision to rule out a small, clinically relevant effect, the benefit is insufficient to justify the use of immune plasma for treating patients with severe influenza A. FUNDING National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD, USA).