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

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

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.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach to treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the effectiveness of PRP in advanced stages of the disease is not entirely clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the use of PRP would be as effective in studies with early-moderate knee OA patients compared to studies including patients with end-stage OA, based on the Kellgren-Lawrence classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of PRP injections versus other intra-articular treatments on pain and functionality. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS We included 31 clinical trials that reported data of 2705 subjects. Meta-analysis revealed an overall significant improvement of both pain [MD, - 1.05 (95% CI - 1.41 to - 0.68); I(2) = 86%; P ≤ 0.00001] and function [SMD, - 1.00 (95% CI - 1.33, to - 0.66); I(2) = 94%; P ≤ 0.00001], favoring PRP. Subanalysis for pain and functional improvement showed a significant pain relief in studies with 1-3 and 1-4 Kellgren-Lawrence OA stages and a significant functional improvement in studies with 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 knee OA stages, favoring PRP. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that including patients with advanced knee OA does not seem to affect the outcomes of clinical trials in which the effectiveness of the PRP in knee OA is assessed.

Abstract

Acute idiopathic pericarditis (AIP) is a benign inflammatory condition associated with high recurrence rates. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) and colchicine are the recommended therapies. Our objective was to systematically assess effects of pharmacological therapies on recurrences or treatment failure in patients with first and subsequent AIP episodes. PubMed, BioMedCentral, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched up to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating NSAIDs, indomethacin, colchicine, steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, immunomodulators, or interleukin receptor antagonists in adult patients with acute episode of idiopathic pericarditis. Mantel-Haenzel random effects models were used for meta-analyses, and effects were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six RCTs of colchicine plus NSAIDs (n=914 patients) and one RCT of anakinra (n=21) were found. No RCTs testing NSAIDs or corticosteroids were identified. Colchicine plus NSAIDs and anakinra significantly reduced recurrence (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.27-0.51; and OR 0.02; 95%CI, 0.00-0.32, respectively). Colchicine plus NSAIDs also reduced treatment failure (OR 0.29; 95%CI 0.21-0.41). No differences in adverse events between colchicine and placebo were found (OR 1.16; 95%CI 0.72 to 1.86). In conclusion, Colchicine plus NSAIDS and anakinra are efficacious for preventing AIP recurrences. Colchicine reduces treatment failure as well. Although its use is supported by clinical experience, no solid evidence is currently available for the role of NSAIDs or steroids in the treatment of AIP.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) is frequently associated with rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD) and high mortality rates. There is a lack of data on management of this often fatal condition. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence that assesses the available management options and discuss the associated management challenges. MATERIAL AND METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Online databases were searched from inception to April of 2021 using the search terms: "dermatomyositis" OR "amyopathic dermatomyositis" OR "clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis" AND "MDA-5″ OR "melanoma differentiation-associated gene-5″ OR "CADM-140″ AND "management" OR "treatment" OR "therapy" OR "therapeutics". Articles assessing the use of pharmacologic agents on 10 or more patients with MDA5-antibody positive CADM associated with ILD were included. Narrative or systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not eligible for inclusion. RESULTS A total of 15 eligible studies and 399 unique patients were selected. We identified only one open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined the management of anti-MDA5 antibody CADM/DM-ILD. Further, 3 cohort studies with prospective arms matched against historical controls, 10 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 retrospective case series were included. A combined therapeutic regimen of high-dose systemic glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents such as calcineurin inhibitors and/or cyclophosphamide, administered early, appears to give the highest rates of survival in those with RP-ILD, while additional therapies such as plasma exchange can be added for refractory disease. Further, tofacitinib and rituximab might have a place in the therapeutic armamentarium of this challenging to treat condition. Early detection and treatment are of extreme importance, given the risk for rapid decline and high mortality in this subset of patients. CONCLUSION There are limited RCTs evaluating the treatment of ILD associated with MDA5-antibody positive CADM. Initiating a combined immunosuppressive therapeutic regimen early in the disease course improves overall morbidity and mortality. RCTs and larger prospective studies are needed to provide high-quality evidence to inform future treatment guidelines.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Some studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) improves androgenetic alopecia (AGA)-while others do not. We determined whether the placebo effect significantly varies between split-scalp and whole-head trials on PRP monotherapy for AGA. Our rationale was based on the plausibility of PRP diffusing to the control (i.e., 'placebo') side of split-scalp trials. This is not possible in whole head studies. METHODS We systematically searched the literature for available data. Our choice of analyses and outcomes were determined by the available data. RESULTS Our endpoint was change in total hair density six months after baseline. Our regression showed that total hair density after six months was significantly (p<0.05) higher in the placebo arm of split-scalp trials, compared to whole-head studies, by 37 hairs/cm(2) . Our one-arm meta-analyses showed that the pooled change in total hair density between the PRP side and placebo side in split scalp studies was -3 hairs/cm(2) (p=0.37), that is, a slight decrease in hair density in the placebo side of the scalp. For whole head stdies the corresponding difference in total hair density between patients receiving PRP and those on placebo was -30 hairs/cm(2) (p=0.000017), that is, a much larger decrease in hair density. Patients in the placebo group in whole-head trials lost significantly more hair than in the placebo side of the split-head trials where hair loss was comparatively reduced-presumably because of PRP diffusing from the treatment side of the scalp. CONCLUSIONS The association between design (i.e., split-scalp vs. whole-head) and outcome, in placebo arms of AGA trials on PRP monotherapy, had never been reported. This 'design effect' could partly reconcile the incongruent conclusions across the PRP literature for AGA; furthermore, clinical guidelines can consider 'design effect' when selecting evidence to base care practices on.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To systematically evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating anal fistula. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and case-control studies published before June 2021 on evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating anal fistula. References of the journals were manually searched for relevant studies. Literature search, screening, data extraction, and bias assessment were carried out by two researcher independently. Stata13.0 and RevMan 5.3 software were used for statistical analysis of the cure rate and recurrence rate of anal fistula. RESULTS A total of 6 case-control studies and 3 RCTs involving 289 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled cure rate of all studies was 65% (95% CI 0.53-0.77), p = 0.000, and the pooled recurrence rate of all studies was 12% (95% CI 0.08-0.17). CONCLUSION Platelet-rich plasma is safe and effective in treating anal fistula and should be promoted and further studied in clinical practice.