-
1.
Fixed- Versus Variable-Dose Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for the Emergent Reversal of Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Alwakeal, A., Maas, M. B., Naidech, A. M., Jahromi, B. S., Potts, M. B.
Critical care medicine. 2024
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) is recommended for rapid reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, yet optimal dosing remains uncertain. DATA SOURCES A systematic review was conducted of PubMed, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE (Wolters Kluwer) databases from January 2000 to August 2023 for clinical studies comparing fixed- vs. variable-dose 4-PCC for emergent VKA reversal with at least one reported clinical outcome. STUDY SELECTION Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms. DATA SYNTHESIS The analysis comprised three randomized trials and 16 cohort studies comprising a total of 323 participants in randomized trials (161 in fixed dosage and 162 in variable dosage) and 1912 patients in cohort studies (858 in fixed-dose and 1054 in variable dose). Extracranial bleeding was the predominant indication, while intracranial hemorrhage varied. Overall, a fixed-dose regimen may be associated with a lower dose of 4-PCC and results in a reduction in 4-PCC administration time compared with a variable-dose regimen. A fixed-dose regimen also likely results in increased clinical hemostasis. While there is no clear difference between the two regimens in terms of achieving a goal international normalized ratio (INR) less than 2, a fixed-dose regimen is less likely to achieve a goal INR less than 1.5. High certainty evidence indicates that the fixed-dose regimen reduces both mortality and the occurrence of thromboembolic events. Additional subgroup analyses provides exploratory data to guide future studies. CONCLUSIONS A fixed-dose regimen for 4-PCC administration provides benefits over a variable-dose regimen in terms of dose reduction, faster administration time, improved clinical hemostasis, and reduced mortality and thromboembolic events. Further studies are warranted to better refine the optimal fixed-dose regimen.
-
2.
Comparative efficacy of terlipressin and norepinephrine for treatment of hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Olson, J. C., Subramanian, R. M.
PloS one. 2024;19(1):e0296690
Abstract
The treatment of choice for hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is vasoconstrictor therapy in combination with albumin, preferably norepinephrine or terlipressin as recommended by recent guidelines. In the absence of larger head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy of terlipressin and norepinephrine, meta-analysis of smaller studies can provide insights needed to understand the comparative effects of these medications. Additionally, recent changes in the HRS diagnosis and treatment guidelines underscore the need for newer analyses comparing terlipressin and norepinephrine. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess reversal of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and 1-month mortality in subjects receiving terlipressin or norepinephrine for the management of HRS-AKI. We searched literature databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Embase, and ResearchGate, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2007 to June 2023 on June 26, 2023. Only trials comparing norepinephrine and albumin with terlipressin and albumin for the treatment of HRS-AKI in adults were included, and trials without HRS reversal as an endpoint or nonresponders were excluded. Pairwise meta-analyses with the random effects model were conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for HRS reversal and 1-month mortality as primary outcomes. Additional outcomes assessed, included HRS recurrence, predictors of response, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for quality assessment. We included 7 RCTs with a total of 376 subjects with HRS-AKI or HRS type 1. This meta-analysis showed numerically higher rates of HRS reversal (OR 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.80-2.22]; P = 0.22) and short-term survival (OR 1.50, 95% CI [0.64-3.53]; P = 0.26) with terlipressin, though these results did not reach statistical significance. Terlipressin was associated with AEs such as abdominal pain and diarrhea, whereas norepinephrine was associated with cardiovascular AEs such as chest pain and ischemia. Most of the AEs were reversible with a reduction in dose or discontinuation of therapy across both arms. Of the terlipressin-treated subjects, 5.3% discontinued therapy due to serious AEs compared to 2.7% of the norepinephrine-treated subjects. Limitations of this analysis included small sample size and study differences in HRS-AKI diagnostic criteria. As more studies using the new HRS-AKI criteria comparing terlipressin and norepinephrine are completed, a clearer understanding of the comparability of these 2 therapies will emerge.
-
3.
Efficacy and safety of infliximab in the treatment of Kawasaki disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wang, L., He, M., Wang, W., Li, S., Zhao, G.
European journal of pediatrics. 2024
Abstract
Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody specifically binding tumor necrosis factor-alpha and has been approved for the treatment of several inflammatory disorders. However, the efficacy of infliximab in primary treatment of Kawasaki disease (KD) or retreatment of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)-resistant KD in children is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of infliximab alone or in combination with IVIG to IVIG. Eligible randomized and non-randomized trials were retrieved by searching literature databases prior to May 31, 2023. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was estimated for continuous variables. A total of 14 eligible studies comprising 1257 participants were included. In refractory KD, infliximab alone was associated with a higher effectiveness rate (OR = 4.48, 95% CI 2.67-7.52) and defervescence rate (OR = 5.01, 95% CI 2.99-8.37) and resulted in a 1.08-day-shorter duration of fever (95% CI 0.61-1.55, P < 0.001) and 1.36-day-shorter length of hospital stay (95% CI 0.65-2.08) compared with IVIG. Incidences of coronary artery lesions (CALs), newly developing CALs, and CAL regression did not differ between both groups. For initial treatment of KD, infliximab in addition to IVIG led to a nominally significant higher effectiveness rate (OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.02-5.01) and a larger reduction of right coronary artery Z score (MD = -0.24, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.21) but did not show additional efficacy in improving other outcomes. The safety profile was similar between both groups. Conclusion: The meta-analysis demonstrates that infliximab alone is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for IVIG-resistant KD. The additional efficacy of infliximab to IVIG for initial treatment of KD is limited. More large and high-quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of infliximab, especially for intensification of primary treatment for KD. What is Known: • Infliximab is a novel monoclonal antibody specifically blocking tumor necrosis factor-alpha and is approved for treatment of several immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. • The efficacy of infliximab in treating children with Kawasaki disease is controversial. What is New: • Infliximab is an effective and safe treatment for children with refractory Kawasaki disease but adds limited efficacy to intravenous immunoglobulin for initial treatment of Kawasaki disease.
-
4.
Intravenous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy
Bus, S. R., de Haan, R. J., Vermeulen, M., van Schaik, I. N., Eftimov, F.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2024;2(2):Cd001797
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.
PICO Summary
Population
People with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (9 randomised controlled trials, n= 372).
Intervention
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg).
Comparison
Placebo; plasma exchange; corticosteroids (prednisolone and intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP)).
Outcome
The primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.72, 3.36]; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 95% CI [3, 5]; 5 trials, 269 participants, high-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.50, 1.68]; 1 trial, 29 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46; 95% CI [0.40, 5.38]; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).
-
5.
Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19
Kimber, C., Valk, S. J., Chai, K. L., Piechotta, V., Iannizzi, C., Monsef, I., Wood, E. M., Lamikanra, A. A., Roberts, D. J., McQuilten, Z., et al
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023;1(1):Cd015167
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')(2) fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
-
6.
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus - treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins: A systematic review
Andrusiów, S., Pawlak, Z., Stańczykiewicz, B., Bogunia-Kubik, K., Koszewicz, M.
Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie. 2023;164:114974
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare disease, but it is one of the most common inflammatory neuropathies in the population. It is particularly common among patients with diabetes mellitus. This raises many problems, both with the differential diagnosis of diabetic and inflammatory neuropathy, as well as the choice of treatment. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is one of the therapeutic options. There is evidence for the effectiveness of IVIG in treating about two-thirds of patients. However, no review has been published to date systematising studies evaluating the response to IVIG treatment in patients with CIDP and coexisting diabetes. METHODS The present study is based on the PRISMA statement and is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022356180). The study included searches of the databases of MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL Complete, Academic Search Ultimate and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, finally including seven original papers evaluating a total of 534 patients in the review. The main inclusion criteria were the presence of a group of patients with CIDP and comorbid diabetes in the study. RESULTS The systematic review showed a lower efficacy of IVIG treatment among patients with coexisting diabetes compared with idiopathic CIDP (61 % vs 71 %). In addition, the presence of conduction blocks on neurography and shorter disease duration proved to be significant factors improving response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS Current scientific data do not allow for strong recommendations on the choice of treatment for CIDP. A randomised, multicentre study evaluating the efficacy of different therapeutic approaches to this disease entity needs to be planned.
-
7.
Role of albumin-induced volume expansion therapy for cerebral vasospasm in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review
Ali, A., Rajeswaran, A. B., Shaikh, N., Al-Rumaihi, G., Al-Sulaiti, G.
Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. 2023;14(4):582-590
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study reviews the effect of albumin-induced volume expansion therapy on symptomatic vasospasm and clinical outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). MATERIALS AND METHODS Computer searches carried out from the Scopus, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Internet documents; hand searching of medical journals; and review of reference lists. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies (OSs) comparing albumin therapy in combination or alone with crystalloid therapy for the treatment of cerebral vasospasm in aSAH were included in the study. Risk-of-bias assessment was conducted using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I tools for RCTs and Oss, respectively. RESULTS Out of a total of 1078 searches, one RCT (published in two articles) and one observational (retrospective) study were included for final analysis. In RCT, albumin was used for volume expansion therapy with a baseline crystalloid regime and comparison made between hypervolemic and normovolemic groups and it showed no beneficial effects on symptomatic vasospasm and clinical outcomes based on the Glasgow outcome scale. Furthermore, the use of albumin showed a tendency for sodium retention with lowering of glomerular filtration rate, limiting the amount of total fluid required for targeted central venous pressure values, and thereby avoiding fluid overload manifestations. The retrospective study results between albumin versus non-albumin groups (crystalloids only) supported improved outcomes in the former group with lower in-hospital mortality. Cardiorespiratory complications were equivocal in RCT and increased in non-albumin group in the retrospective study. Risk-of-bias assessment analyses revealed "some concerns" in RCT and "serious" limitation in OS due to its retrospective design. CONCLUSION Albumin-induced volume expansion therapy for cerebral vasospasm does not have substantiative evidence to improve cerebral vasospasm and clinical outcomes in aSAH. Studies with well-designed RCTs are required to compare the use of albumin for volume expansion therapy versus standard fluid management using crystalloids to mitigate the scarcity of published data.
-
8.
Safety and efficacy of pharmacological approaches available for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C): a systematic review
Velusamy, Y., Vivekanandan, G., Romli, M. H., Shankar, A., Karuppiah, T., Yubbu, P.
The Turkish journal of pediatrics. 2023;65(5):719-738
Abstract
BACKGROUND To describe the existing pharmacological managements for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) in a systematic way, to identify the available pharmacological managements in MIS-C, evaluate its safety and efficacy and identify the best treatment procedures for practice recommendation. METHODS A systematic search using six databases was conducted on August 18, 2021, updated in January 26th 2023. Terminologies that were used in this search are children, MIS-C/PIMS and SARS-CoV-2. A PRISMA flow diagram was used to report the study selection process. Quality analysis was done based on NOS and GRADE tools. Data synthesis was conducted by extracting the information on drugs used, efficacy and side effects. RESULTS From the 32 articles included, a total of 2331 children with MIS-C were studied. The main pharmacological approaches were immunomodulatory therapy, i.e., intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (77.3%), steroids (60.5%), and a combination of IVIG and steroids (41.3%). IVIG and steroids were found to be potentially effective and safe treatments for MIS-C. Combination of IVIG and steroids was found favorable in severe cases with higher recovery rate. Refractory treatments include second dose of initial treatment and biological response modifier drugs like anakinra, tocilizumab, infliximab. A small number of studies investigating supportive treatment consisted of vasoactive, inotropic and anticoagulation. The mortality rate was 1.28% and only three studies reported side effects from the treatment. Evidence of outcome from GRADE were mostly at moderate, low and very low levels. CONCLUSIONS This review provides preliminary evidence to support the current standard treatment practices in managing MIS-C pharmacologically. However, comprehensive investigation is required using clinical trials to provide stronger outcome evidence.
-
9.
Adverse Reactions Associated with Intravenous Immunoglobulin Administration in the Treatment of Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review
Jiang, M., Kimber, J. S., Gupta, A., Kovoor, J., Stretton, B., Ravindran, J., Hissaria, P., Smith, W. B., Bacchi, S.
International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. 2023;:1-16
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), which is used to treat multiple neurological conditions, may be associated with serious adverse reactions. The individual neurological disease characteristics associated with adverse reactions, along with strategies to prevent and treat adverse reactions, are uncertain. A systematic review was conducted of the databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to summarise studies that report adverse reactions of IVIg therapy in patients with neurological disease. There were 65 studies included in the review. The reported rates of adverse reactions vary widely, but the best evidence suggests rates between 25 and 34% per patient. Common adverse reactions include headache and laboratory abnormalities. Less common but serious adverse reactions included thromboembolic complications and anaphylaxis. Overall, there is a lack of high-quality comparative data to definitively determine if any specific neurological indications are associated with a higher risk of adverse reactions. However, individual neurological disease characteristics possibly associated with an increased likelihood of adverse reactions include limited mobility (as in certain neuromuscular conditions), paraproteinaemia (as in certain peripheral neuropathies), and cardiomyopathy (as in certain myopathies). There is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies, which may include modification to dose, reduced infusion rate, and premedication. Further studies regarding methods to prevent and treat IVIg-ARs in neurology patients are required.
-
10.
Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in severe/critical COVID-19 adult patients
Kwapisz D, Bogusławska J
Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie. 2023;163:114851
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a huge obstacle to the health system due to the high rate of contagion. It is postulated that intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) can lower the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related inflammation and prevent the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The main advantages of IVIG treatment might be targeting cytokine storm in severe and critical COVID-19 by influences on complement, innate immune cells, effector T-cells, and Tregs. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of IVIG in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were performed. It seems that early administration of high-dose IVIG (in the acceleration phase of the disease) in severe or especially critical COVID-19 may be an effective therapeutic option, but there are no strong data to use it routinely. The results regarding mortality reduction are inconclusive. Additionally, IVIG treatment carries a risk of complications that should be considered when initiating treatment. However, given the COVID-19 mortality rate and limited therapeutic options, the use of IVIG is worth considering. This review summarizes the development and highlights recent advances in treatment with IVIG of severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients.