Abstract

BACKGROUND Striae gravidarum (SG) is a connective tissue disorder seen commonly in primigravidas. It is associated with impairment in the quality of life. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of ablative fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser combined with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus ablative fractional CO2 laser and placebo in the treatment of SG. STUDY DESIGN Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in 16 patients with SG. The assigned treatment area (abdomen) was divided into two sides and was randomly assigned to the PRP side and the control side. All patients received ablative fractional CO2 laser. Immediately after each laser procedure, the PRP side received autologous PRP, while the control side received plain normal saline solution (pNSS) as a placebo. The study was done for three sessions, at intervals of 4 weeks. An independent assessor used the photographs taken at weeks 6, 10, 14 and 16 to assess the clinical improvement. The patient satisfaction was reported at the same intervals. A quartile grading scale was used to measure both the clinical improvement and patient satisfaction. Data were analyzed using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Histopathology was done before treatment, and at the end of the study period. RESULTS The combination of ablative fractional CO2 laser and autologous PRP had better clinical improvement and patients' satisfaction compared to ablative fractional CO2 laser and placebo. However, both outcome measures were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION Ablative fractional CO2 laser combined with autologous PRP appears to be an effective treatment in SG.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is a devastating disease, and there is some evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection might alleviate pain and improve joint function in individuals with ONFH. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of PRP and ESWT in symptomatic ONFH patients. METHODS A total of 60 patients aged 40-79 with unilateral ONFH at Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) stages I, II, and III were randomly assigned to the PRP (N=30) or the ESWT group (N=30). Four treatment sessions were provided in both groups. Assessments were performed at baseline, and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month. Primary outcomes were measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs). Secondary outcomes were assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The linear mixed-model analysis was used to evaluate the differences between groups and within groups and the "group by time" interaction effects. RESULTS There were significant differences between groups in terms of changes over time for VAS, PPTs, WOMAC, and HHS since 3-month and maintained up to 12-month (P<0.05, except for PPTs at 12-month). The simple main effects showed that the patients in PRP group had greater improvements in VAS (mean difference = -0.82, 95% CI [-1.39, -0.25], P=0.005), WOMAC (mean difference = -4.19, 95% CI [-7.00, -1.37], P=0.004), and HHS (mean difference = 5.28, 95% CI [1.94, 8.62], P=0.002). No related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION This study supported the effectiveness and safety of both the PRP injection and ESWT in treating ONFH patients. For symptomatic patients with ONFH, intra-articular PRP injection appeared superior to ESWT in pain relief and functional improvement.

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

BACKGROUND Subchondral bony structure damage plays an essential role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) knee. An intra-articular injection cannot reach the damaged subchondral bony structure and treat its pathologies effectively. The objective of the study was to compare the clinical effects of single intra-articular injection with or without intra-osseous injections of PRP in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) knee. METHODS This was a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Fifty patients, with OA knee (K&L grade III), with ages between 50 and 65 years, were randomly allocated into 'intra-osseous, intra-articular PRP' ('IO+IA-PRP') (n = 25) or 'intra-articular PRP' group ('IA-PRP') (n = 25). Patients in the 'IO+IA-PRP' group received 18 ml PRP injection, and the 'IA-PRP' group received 8 ml PRP injection. Intra-osseous injections were given at the tibial plateau (5 ml) and femoral condyle (5 ml), along with intra-articular knee injection (8 ml), under fluoroscopic guidance. Outcomes were measured using VAS-pain, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), and the treatment satisfaction scale. All patients (n = 50) were followed up till six months. RESULTS The mean age was 57.12(4.27) years and 57.00(4.96) years in the 'IO+IA-PRP' and 'IA-PRP' groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in pain relief (VAS pain) and KOOS parameters: pain, symptoms, ADL function, sport and recreation function, and quality of life. Compared to the 'IA-PRP' group, the 'IO+IA-PRP' group showed a greater reduction of VAS pain at six months. However, no significant difference was obtained in VAS pain-relief between these two groups (p = 0.422) at six months. Similarly, at 6 months, in inter-group comparison, except 'sport and recreation function' (p < 0.05), no significant differences were obtained in mean-scores of KOOS parameters: pain (p = 0.514); symptom (p = 0.148), ADL-function (p = 0.991), QoL-(p = 0.376). Patients in the 'IO+IA-PRP' group complained of significant 'injection-associated' adverse events and consumed a greater number of Acetaphenomen. CONCLUSIONS Both groups showed significant improvement following the intervention. Intra-osseous PRP injections did not provide any additional benefit over intra-articular PRP injection until six months regarding pain relief and functional improvement.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; p(interaction)=0·001). INTERPRETATION When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The efficacy of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in sparing red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in children with hemolytic uremic syndrome related to Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC-HUS) is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a pilot randomized controlled open trial between December 2018 and January 2021. Children were randomized to the intervention (subcutaneous rHuEPO 50 U/kg three times weekly until discharge + RBC transfusion if hemoglobin ≤ 7 g/dL and/or hemodynamic instability) or to the control arm (RBC transfusion if hemoglobin ≤ 7 g/dL and/or hemodynamic instability). Primary outcome was the number of RBC transfusions received during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were to explore whether baseline EPO levels were adequate to the degree of anemia, to correlate selected acute phase parameters with the number of RBC transfusions, and to assess possible adverse events. RESULTS Twelve patients per arm were included; they were comparable at recruitment and throughout the disease course. Median number of RBC transfusions was similar between groups (1.5, p = 0.76). Most patients had baseline EPO levels adequate to the degree of anemia, which did not correlate with the number of transfusions (r = 0.19, p = 0.44). Conversely, baseline (r = 0.73, p = 0.032) and maximum lactic dehydrogenase levels (r = 0.78, p = 0.003), creatinine peak (r = 0.71, p = 0.03) and dialysis duration (r = 0.7, p = 0.04) correlated significantly with RBC requirements. No side effects were recorded. CONCLUSION In children with STEC-HUS, the administration of rHuEPO did not reduce the number of RBC transfusions. Larger studies addressing higher doses and similar severity of kidney failure at rHuEPO initiation (e.g. at start of dialysis) are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776851. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Abstract

BACKGROUND High volume plasma-exchange (HVPE) improves survival in patients with acute liver failure (ALF), but apprehension regarding volume overload and worsening of cerebral edema remain. METHODS In an open-label randomized controlled trial, 40 consecutive patients of ALF were randomized 1:1 to either standard medical treatment (SMT) or SMT with standard-volume plasma-exchange (SVPE). SVPE was performed using centrifugal apheresis [target volume of 1.5 to 2.0 plasma volumes per session] until desired response was achieved. Cerebral edema was assessed by brain imaging. Results were analyzed in an intention-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was 21-day transplant-free survival. The levels of cytokines, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and endotoxins were analyzed at baseline and day 5. RESULTS ALF patients [aged 31.5 ± 12.2 years, 60% male, 78% viral, 83% hyperacute, 70% with SIRS were included. At day 5, SVPE [mean sessions 2.15 ± 1.42, median plasma volume replaced 5.049 L] compared to SMT alone, resulted in higher lactate clearance (p = .02), amelioration of SIRS (84% vs. 26%; P = .02), reduction in ammonia levels [(221.5 ± 96.9) vs.(439 ± 385.6) μg/dl, P = .02) and SOFA scores [9.9(±3.3) vs. 14.6(±4.8); P = .001]. There were no treatment related deaths. SVPE was associated with a higher 21-day transplant free-survival [75% vs. 45%; P = .04, HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.01-0.88]. A significant decrease in levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and an increase in anti-inflammatory cytokines along with a decrease in endotoxin and DAMPs was seen with SVPE. CONCLUSION In ALF patients with cerebral edema, SVPE is safe and effective and improves survival possibly by a reduction in cytokine storm and ammonia. CLINICALTRIAL gov (identifier: NCT02718079).