-
1.
Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis
Kim, D., Bashrum, B. S., Kotlier, J. L., Mayfield, C. K., Thompson, A. A., Abu-Zahra, M., Hwang, M., Bolia, I. K., Petrigliano, F. A., Liu, J. N.
Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. 2024;6(1):100851
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin. METHODS The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. CONCLUSIONS Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with hip osteoarthritis (15 systematic reviews).
Intervention
Systematic review to describe the incidence and types of spin bias in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma injections for hip osteoarthritis and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.
Comparison
Outcome
All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration.
-
2.
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).
-
3.
Kidney disease in trials of perioperative tranexamic acid
Liu, C. W., Anih, J., Lebedeva, V., Gungor, A., Wang, C., Park, L., Roshanov, P. S.
Journal of clinical anesthesia. 2024;94:111417
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To assess how kidney disease is handled in randomized trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of perioperative tranexamic acid, and to evaluate its effects across levels of kidney function. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING We screened studies from a previous comprehensive systematic review, and updated its search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL to July 31, 2023. PATIENTS Patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery. INTERVENTIONS Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo or usual care without tranexamic acid. MEASUREMENT We summarized the handling of kidney disease in eligibility criteria, dose adjustments for kidney function, and effects of tranexamic acid on thrombotic events, seizures, and bleeding by subgroups of kidney function. MAIN RESULTS We evaluated 300 trials with 53,085 participants; 45,958 participants (86.6%) were enrolled in 228 trials (76.0%) that explicitly excluded patients with kidney disease. Definitions of kidney diseased used for exclusion varied widely. Most were non-specific and some corresponded to mild disease. Only 5 trials adjusted dosing for kidney function. Meta-analysis of two large trials found tranexamic acid unlikely to substantially increase or decrease the occurrence of thrombotic events in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.07) or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11; P for subgroup difference = 0.47), but both trials excluded patients with severe kidney disease. No analysis could be performed regarding seizure risk. One large trial in noncardiac surgery reported similar reduction in bleeding across subgroups of kidney function but excluded patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. CONCLUSIONS The large evidence base supporting perioperative tranexamic acid suffers from broad and unjustified exclusion of patients with kidney disease. Typical perioperative dosing of tranexamic acid is likely safe and effective in patients with creatinine clearance >30 mL/min, but effects in more severe kidney disease are unknown.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery (300 trials, n= 53,085).
Intervention
Intravenous tranexamic acid.
Comparison
Placebo or usual care without tranexamic acid.
Outcome
From all the included studies, 45,958 participants (86.6%) were enrolled in 228 trials (76.0%) that explicitly excluded patients with kidney disease. Definitions of kidney diseased used for exclusion varied widely. Most were non-specific and some corresponded to mild disease. Only 5 trials adjusted dosing for kidney function. Meta-analysis of two large trials found tranexamic acid unlikely to substantially increase or decrease the occurrence of thrombotic events in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR 0.95; 95% CI [0.83, 1.07]) or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m(2) (RR 1.00; 95% CI [0.91, 1.11], but both trials excluded patients with severe kidney disease. No analysis could be performed regarding seizure risk. One large trial in non-cardiac surgery reported similar reduction in bleeding across subgroups of kidney function but excluded patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min.
-
4.
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies and 372,156 hemodialysis patients
Karimi, Z., Raeisi Shahraki, H., Mohammadian-Hafshejani, A.
International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention. 2023;19:200220
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prior studies on the association between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients have yielded conflicting findings. We aimed to clarify this relationship through a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. METHODS We comprehensively searched major databases for observational and interventional studies on ESA use and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients published from 1980 to September 2023. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. The study data were analyzed using Stata 15 software. FINDINGS Upon conducting the initial search, we extracted 792 articles and, after screening and considering the research criteria, 17 studies with 372,156 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, ESA use was associated with a 27 % increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95 % CI: 1.15-1.40, p < 0.001). This risk varied by geographical location, with RRs of 1.27 (95 % CI: 1.14-1.41; p-value≤0.001) for America, 1.33 (95 % CI: 1.12-1.58; p-value = 0.001) for Asia, and 1.23 (95 % CI: 1.02-1.49; p-value = 0.028) for Europe. Importantly, a gender disparity was revealed, with studies involving a higher proportion of males showing greater risks (RR 1.51, 95 % CI: 1.25-1.83, p < 0.001) than female-predominant studies (RR 1.08, 95 % CI: 0.86-1.36, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis indicates ESA use is associated with heightened cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients, especially in males. These findings have implications for optimizing dosing strategies while balancing efficacy and safety. Further research is warranted, particularly randomized controlled trials, to establish definitive ESA dosing guidelines.
PICO Summary
Population
Haemodialysis patients (17 studies, n= 372,156).
Intervention
Systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) use and cardiovascular mortality.
Comparison
Outcome
Overall, ESA use was associated with a 27% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI [1.15, 1.40]). This risk varied by geographical location, with RRs of 1.27; 95% CI [1.14, 1.41] for America, 1.33; 95% CI [1.12, 1.58] for Asia, and 1.23; 95% CI [1.02, 1.49] for Europe. A gender disparity was revealed, with studies involving a higher proportion of males showing greater risks RR, 1.51; 95% CI [1.25, 1.83] than female-predominant studies RR, 1.08; 95% CI [0.86, 1.36].
-
5.
COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From Five Randomized Trials
Levine AC, Fukuta Y, Huaman MA, Ou J, Meisenberg BR, Patel B, Paxton JH, Hanley DF, Rijnders BJ, Gharbharan A, et al
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2023
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for COVID-19 disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, MedRxiv, World Health Organization, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS Five included studies from four countries enrolled and transfused 2,620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1,795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14,580 in diverse assays. 160 (12.2%) of 1315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1305 COVID-19 convalescent plasma treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95%CI: 1.3%-6.0%; p=.001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95%CI: 4.0%-11.1%; p=.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult COVID-19 outpatients (5 studies, n= 2,620).
Intervention
Intravenous COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion (n= 1,305).
Comparison
Non-convalescent plasma or normal saline (n= 1,315).
Outcome
The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titre levels ranged from 8 to 14,580 in diverse assays. 160 (12.2%) of 1,315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1,305 COVID-19 convalescent plasma treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% CI: 1.3% - 6.0%) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titre with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 4.0% - 11.1%) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma with antibody titres below the median titre.
-
6.
Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post-COVID-19 condition
Fox, T., Hunt, B. J., Ariens, R. A., Towers, G. J., Lever, R., Garner, P., Kuehn, R.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;7(7):Cd015775
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND The post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID-19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. OBJECTIVES Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms 'COVID', 'amyloid', 'fibrin', 'fibrinogen'. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre-developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind). MAIN RESULTS Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial.
PICO Summary
Population
Any person diagnosed with post‐COVID‐19 condition (PCC), (5 laboratory studies).
Intervention
Plasmapheresis performed with the intention of removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles.
Comparison
Placebo or standard of care.
Outcome
No randomised controlled trials or ongoing trials where patients with PCC had undergone plasmapheresis with the intention of removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were found. Five laboratory studies that assessed whether amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were present in the blood of patients with post‐COVID‐19 condition were included. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across the included studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls.
-
7.
Safety and Efficacy of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors vs. Erythropoietin-Stimulating Agents in Treating Anemia in Renal Patients (With or Without Dialysis): A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Damarlapally, N., Thimmappa, V., Irfan, H., Sikandari, M., Madhu, K., Desai, A., Pavani, P., Zakir, S., Gupta, M., Khosa, M. M., et al
Cureus. 2023;15(10):e47430
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase domain inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are a novel group of drugs used to treat renal anemia, but their benefits vary among different trials. Our meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of HIF-PHI versus erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in managing anemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), regardless of their dialysis status. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were queried to discover eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To quantify the specific effects of HIF-PHI, we estimated pooled mean differences (MDs) and relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs. Our meta-analysis involved 22,151 CKD patients, with 11,234 receiving HIF-PHI and 10,917 receiving ESA from 19 different RCTs. The HIF-PHI used included roxadustat, daprodustat, and vadadustat. HIF-PHI yielded a slight but significant increase in change in mean hemoglobin (Hb) levels (MD: 0.06, 95% CI (0.00, 0.11); p = 0.03), with the maximum significant increase shown in roxadustat followed by daprodustat as compared to ESA. There was a significant decrease in efficacy outcomes such as change in mean iron (MD: -1.54, 95% CI (-3.01, -0.06); p = 0.04), change in mean hepcidin (MD: -21.04, 95% CI (-28.92, -13.17); p < 0.00001), change in mean ferritin (MD: -16.45, 95% CI (-27.17,-5.73); p = 0.03) with roxadustat showing maximum efficacy followed by daprodustat. As for safety, HIF-PHI showed significantly increased incidence in safety outcomes such as diarrhea (MD: 1.3, 95% CI (1.11, 1.51); p = 0.001), adverse events leading to withdrawal (MD: 2.03, 95% CI (1.5, 2.74), p = 0.00001) among 25 various analyzed outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that HIF-PHIs present a potentially safer and more effective alternative to ESAs, with increased Hb levels and decreased iron usage in CKD patients without significantly increasing adverse events. Therefore, in these patients, we propose HIF-PHI alongside renal anemia treatment.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with chronic kidney disease regardless of their dialysis status, who also exhibited anaemia (19 randomised controlled trials, n= 22,151).
Intervention
Hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase domain inhibitors (HIF-PHIs): roxadustat, daprodustat, and vadadustat (n= 11,234).
Comparison
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) (n= 10,917).
Outcome
HIF-PHI yielded a slight but significant increase in change in mean haemoglobin levels (MD 0.06; 95% CI [0.00, 0.11]), with the maximum significant increase shown in roxadustat followed by daprodustat as compared to ESA. There was a significant decrease in efficacy outcomes such as change in mean iron (MD -1.54; 95% CI [-3.01, -0.06]), change in mean hepcidin (MD -21.04; 95% CI [-28.92, -13.17]), change in mean ferritin (MD -16.45; 95% CI [-27.17, -5.73]) with roxadustat showing maximum efficacy followed by daprodustat.
-
8.
Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;5(5):Cd013600
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in 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 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma 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 evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
PICO Summary
Population
People of any age with COVID-19 (33 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) n= 24,861).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (n= 11,432).
Comparison
Standard plasma, human immunoglobulin, placebo or standard care alone.
Outcome
This living systematic review fourth review update version included 33 RCTs, of these 9 were single‐centre studies and 24 were multi‐centre studies. The authors identified 49 ongoing studies. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID‐19 and moderate to severe disease: 23 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone; 5 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma, and 1 RCT compared convalescent plasma to human immunoglobulin. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and mild disease: 2 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and 2 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma. When comparing convalescent plasma vs. placebo or standard care alone, authors’ certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. For individuals with mild disease, the authors have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death.
-
9.
Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;2(2):Cd013600
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in 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 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma 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 evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
PICO Summary
Population
People of any age with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 (33 randomised controlled trials, n= 24,861).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (n= 11,432).
Comparison
Standard plasma, human immunoglobulin, placebo or standard care alone.
Outcome
This living systematic review was a fourth review update version and included 33 studies. The authors identified 49 ongoing studies. For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, the authors’ certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. For individuals with mild disease, the authors have low certainty evidence for the primary outcomes.
-
10.
Deferoxamine in intracerebral hemorrhage: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Sun T, Zhao YY, Xiao QX, Wu M, Luo MY
Clinical neurology and neurosurgery. 2023;227:107634
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a stroke with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Deferoxamine (DFX) is thought to be effective in treating Intracerebral Hemorrhage. In our study, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment effects of DFX. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database in Jan 2022 for studies on DFX for ICH patients. Outcome measures included relative hematoma volume, relative edema volume, good neurological functional outcome and adverse events. Odds risk (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. RESULTS After searching 636 articles, 4 RCTs, 2 NRCTs, and 1cohort study were included. We found that DFX was effective in hematoma absorption on day 7 after onset, but the difference was not significant on day 14. DFX could suppress edema expansion on days 3, 7, and 14 after onset. DFX did not contribute to better outcomes after 3 and 6 months when used the modified Rankin Scale and the Glasgow Outcome Scale to evaluate neurological prognosis. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference in Serious adverse events between the experimental and control groups. CONCLUSIONS DFX could limit edema expansion on days 3, 7, and 14 after commencement and facilitate hematoma absorption at week 1 without significantly increasing the risk of adverse events, but it did not improve neurological prognosis.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (n= 7 studies).
Intervention
Deferoxamine (DFX).
Comparison
Placebo.
Outcome
Outcome measures included relative haematoma volume, relative oedema volume, good neurological functional outcome and adverse events. DFX was effective in haematoma absorption on day 7 after onset, but the difference was not significant on day 14. DFX could suppress oedema expansion on days 3, 7, and 14 after onset. DFX did not contribute to better outcomes after 3 and 6 months when used the modified Rankin Scale and the Glasgow Outcome Scale to evaluate neurological prognosis. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events between the experimental and control groups.