-
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.
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.
-
3.
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].
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.
-
6.
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.
-
7.
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.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Comparative Efficacy of Early TIPS, Non-Early TIPS, and Standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding: a network meta-analysis
Huang, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Sun, S., Xie, Y., Yin, X.
International journal of surgery (London, England). 2023
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cirrhosis is a chronic disease characterized by chronic liver inflammation and diffuse fibrosis. A combination of vasoactive drugs, preventive antibiotics, and endoscopy is the recommended standard treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding; however, this has been challenged. We compared the effects of early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), non-early TIPS, and standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews guidelines. The review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization-approved trial registry databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating early TIPS, non-early TIPS, and standard treatment in patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding. RESULTS Twenty-four RCTs (1,894 patients) were included in the review. Compared with standard treatment, early TIPS (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.30-0.94; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98.3) had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (moderate-to-high-quality evidence), and early TIPS (OR, 0.19; 95% CrI, 0.11-0.28; SUCRA, 98.2) and non-early TIPS (OR, 0.30, 95% CrI: 0.23-0.42; SUCRA, 1.8) were associated with a lower risk of rebleeding (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). Early TIPS was not associated with a reduced risk of hepatic encephalopathy, and non-early TIPS (OR, 2.78; 95% CrI, 1.89-4.23, SUCRA, 0) was associated with an increased incidence of hepatic encephalopathy (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of new or worsening ascites (moderate-to-high-quality evidence) among the three interventions. CONCLUSION Based on the moderate-to-high quality evidence presented in this study, early TIPS placement was associated with reduced all-cause mortality [with a median follow-up of 1.9 years (25th-75th percentile range 1.9-2.3 years)] and rebleeding compared to standard treatment and non-early TIPS. Although early TIPS and standard treatment had a comparable incidence of hepatic encephalopathy, early TIPS showed superiority over non-early TIPS in this aspect. Recent studies have also shown promising results in controlling TIPS-related hepatic encephalopathy. However, it is important to consider individual patient characteristics and weigh the potential benefits against the risks associated with early TIPS. Therefore, we recommend that clinicians carefully evaluate the patient's condition, considering factors such as severity of variceal bleeding, underlying liver disease, and overall clinical status, before making a treatment decision. Further well-designed RCTs comparing early TIPS with non-early TIPS are needed to validate these findings and provide more definitive guidance.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding (24 randomised controlled trials, n= 1,894).
Intervention
Early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).
Comparison
Non-early TIPS. Standard treatment.
Outcome
Compared with standard treatment, early TIPS (odds ratio (OR) 0.53; 95% credible interval (CrI), [0.30, 0.94]; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98.3) had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (moderate-to-high-quality evidence), and early TIPS (OR, 0.19; 95% CrI [0.11, 0.28]; SUCRA, 98.2) and non-early TIPS (OR, 0.30; 95% CrI [0.23, 0.42]; SUCRA, 1.8) were associated with a lower risk of rebleeding (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). Early TIPS was not associated with a reduced risk of hepatic encephalopathy, and non-early TIPS (OR 2.78; 95% CrI [1.89, 4.23] SUCRA, 0) was associated with an increased incidence of hepatic encephalopathy (moderate-to-high-quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of new or worsening ascites (moderate-to-high-quality evidence) among the three interventions.
-
10.
Meta-Analysis and Metaregression of the Treatment Effect of Intravenous Iron in Iron-Deficient Heart Failure
Martens, P., Augusto, S. N., Jr., Mullens, W., Tang, W. H. W.
JACC. Heart failure. 2023
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend that intravenous iron should be considered to improve symptoms of heart failure (HF) and reduce the risk for HF admissions in patients after acute HF. OBJECTIVES This study sought to analyze the effect of intravenous iron on cardiovascular (CV) death and HF admissions in a broad population of HF patients with iron deficiency and the relation with baseline transferrin saturation (TSAT). METHODS A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of intravenous iron in patients with iron deficiency and HF between January 1, 2000, and August 26, 2023, was performed. The overall treatment effect was estimated using a fixed effect model for: 1) CV death; 2) CV death and HF admission; 3) first HF admission; and 4) total HF admissions. Metaregression through a mixed effect model was used to explore the impact of baseline TSAT in case of heterogeneity among trial results. RESULTS A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were identified in the systematic review and retained in the meta-analysis. Aggregate-level data were included on 6,624 HF patients, 3,407 of whom were randomized to intravenous iron and 3,217 to placebo. Treatment with intravenous iron resulted in a lower risk for CV death (OR: 0.867 [95% CI: 0.755-0.955]; P = 0.0427), combined CV death and HF admission (OR: 0.838 [95% CI: 0.751-0.936]; P = 0.0015), first HF admission (OR: 0.855 [95% CI: 0.744-0.983]; P = 0.0281), and total HF admissions (rate ratio: 0.739 [95% CI: 0.661-0.827]; P < 0.0001). Significant heterogeneity among trial results was observed for first and total HF admissions. Metaregression suggested that some of the heterogeneity was related to the baseline TSAT of the enrolled population, with trials enrolling patients with lower TSAT exhibiting a large effect size on HF-related events. CONCLUSIONS The totality of data suggests that treatment with intravenous iron reduces both CV death and HF-related events in a broad population with HF. A lower baseline TSAT might be important for the effect on HF-related events.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with iron deficiency and heart failure (HF), (14 randomised controlled trials, n= 6,624).
Intervention
Intravenous iron (n= 3,407).
Comparison
Placebo (n= 3,217).
Outcome
Treatment with intravenous iron resulted in a lower risk for cardiovascular (CV) death (OR: 0.867; 95% CI [0.755, 0.955]), combined CV death and HF admission (OR: 0.838; 95% CI [0.751, 0.936]), first HF admission (OR: 0.855; 95% CI [0.744, 0.983]), and total HF admissions (rate ratio: 0.739; 95% CI [0.661, 0.827]). Significant heterogeneity among trial results was observed for first and total HF admissions. Meta-regression suggested that some of the heterogeneity was related to the baseline transferrin saturation (TSAT) of the enrolled population, with trials enrolling patients with lower TSAT exhibiting a large effect size on HF-related events.