1.
Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review
Abbas AS, Hardy N, Ghozy S, Dibas M, Paranjape G, Evanson KW, Reierson NL, Cowie K, Kamrowski S, Schmidt S, et al
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 2022;213:107140
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. RESULTS Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). CONCLUSION This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.
2.
Amlodipine as adjuvant therapy to current chelating agents for reducing iron overload in thalassaemia major: a systematic review, meta-analysis and simulation of future studies
Elfaituri MK, Ghozy S, Ebied A, Morra ME, Hassan OG, Alhusseiny A, Abbas AS, Sherif NA, Fernandes JL, Huy NT
Vox sanguinis. 2021
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Iron overload in thalassaemia is a crucial prognostic factor and a major cause of death due to heart failure or arrhythmia. Therefore, previous research has recommended amlodipine as an auxiliary treatment to current chelating agents for reducing iron overload in thalassaemia patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of the results of three randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of amlodipine in thalassaemia patients through 12 databases were carried out. RESULTS Our final cohort included 130 patients. Insignificant difference in decreasing liver iron concentrations was found between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference = -0·2, [95% confidence interval = (-0·55-0·15), P = 0·26]}. As regards serum ferritin, our analysis also showed no significant difference in serum ferritin between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval = -0·16 (-0·51-0·19), P = 0·36]}. Similarly, there was insignificant difference in cardiac T2* between amlodipine and control groups {weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval = 0·34 (-0·01-0·69), P = 0·06]}. CONCLUSIONS Despite the growing evidence supporting the role of amlodipine in reducing iron overload in thalassaemia patients, our meta-analysis did not find that evidence collectively significant. The results of our simulation suggest that when more data are available, a meta-analysis with more randomized clinical trials could provide more conclusive insights.