0
selected
-
1.
Effective antiviral regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations: a systematic comparison of randomized controlled trials
Sullivan DJ, Focosi D, Hanley D, Franchini M, Ou J, Casadevall A, Paneth N
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antiviral therapy has a greater impact when provided early in the disease to outpatients, potentially preventing hospitalization and subsequent deaths, while reducing healthcare system pressure. Controversies persist about the best treatment option for COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression to hospital. No head-to-head RCT has been conducted to compare the three major modalities in current use-oral/intravenous antivirals, monoclonal antibodies and COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). METHODS We assembled data from March 2020 to April 2022 from published outpatient RCTs examining authorized COVID-19 therapies with hospitalization as the major endpoint, and that also assessed mortality, symptom resolution, underlying risk factors for progression, timing and dose of the intervention in relationship to evolving variants of concern (VOC). FINDINGS CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most RCTs targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies and some concerns for eight. The I (2) statistic heterogeneity amongst the outpatient trials with endpoint hospitalization is 72% (p-< 0.01). INTERPRETATION The emerging resistance of Omicron BA.2 and related sublineages (XE, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) to monoclonal antibodies suggests a pressing need to reevaluate CCP (nowadays largely available from vaccinees with high neutralizing antibody levels) for COVID19 outpatients at risk of disease progression, especially in settings with constrained medical resources. FUNDING This study was funded by the US Department of Defense, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency and NIH. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT Evidence before this study: To date no head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) has ever compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. We assembled RCTs with hospitalization as the primary endpoint. A literature search of MEDLINE (through PubMed), medRxiv and bioRxiv databases was carried out inclusive of RCTs published from March 2020 to April 2022 inclusive, using the search terms ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "coronavirus disease 2019") AND ("treatment" OR "therapy") AND ("outpatient" OR "hospitalization"). The risk of bias obtained at COVID-19-Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), was low in half of the studies with some concerns for the remaining.Added value of this study: This systematic review compared outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy. Trials of monoclonals were performed prior to the recognition that they had become ineffective against the Omicron sublineages.Implications of all the available evidence: Monoclonal antibodies and small chemical antivirals each have drawbacks. Both take time to be developed and are expensive. Monoclonals can lose efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events. Convalescent plasma retains its potency and is likely to be the only accessible therapeutic option for low-and-middle income countries.
PICO Summary
Population
COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression (20 studies).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (CCP).
Comparison
Antiviral agents; monoclonal antibodies.
Outcome
CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies.
-
2.
Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Franchini M, Corsini F, Focosi D, Cruciani M
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;11(9)
Abstract
Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients recovered from COVID-19 is one of the most studied anti-viral therapies against SARS-COV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence from the available systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of CP in COVID-19 through an overview of the published systematic reviews (SRs). A systematic literature search was conducted up to August 2021 in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Medrxiv databases to identify systematic reviews focusing on CP use in COVID-19. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. The following outcomes were analyzed: mortality, viral clearance, clinical improvement, length of hospital stay, adverse reactions. In addition, where possible, subgroup analyses were performed according to study design (e.g., RCTs vs. non-RCTs), CP neutralizing antibody titer and timing of administration, and disease severity. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews AMSTAR-2 and the GRADE assessment. Overall, 29 SRs met the inclusion criteria based on 53 unique primary studies (17 RCT and 36 non-RCT). Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to absence of a protocol (11/29) and funding sources of primary studies (27/29). Of the 89 analyses on which GRADE judgements were made, effect estimates were judged to be of high/moderate certainty in four analyses, moderate in 38, low in 38, very low in nine. Despite the variability in the certainty of the evidence, mostly related to the risk of bias and inconsistency, the results of this umbrella review highlight a mortality reduction in CP over standard therapy when administered early and at high titer, without increased adverse reactions.
-
3.
The use of whole blood in traumatic bleeding: a systematic review
Cruciani M, Franchini M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pati I, Masiello F, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, Vaglio S, Agostini V, et al
Internal and emergency medicine. 2020
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Hemostatic resuscitation is currently considered a standard of care for the management of life-threatening hemorrhage, but in some critical settings the access to high quantities of blood components is problematic. Whole blood (WB) transfusion has been proposed as an alternative modality for hemostatic resuscitation of traumatic major bleeding. To assess the efficacy and safety of WB in trauma-associated massive bleeding, we performed a systematic review of the literature. We selected studies comparing WB transfusions to transfusion of blood components (COMP) in massive trauma bleeding; both randomized clinical trial (RCT) and observational studies were considered. The outcomes were mortality (30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality) and adverse events/transfusion reactions. The effect sizes were crude odds ratio (OR), adjusted OR and hazard ratio (HR). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs, and the ROBIN-1 tool for observational studies. The overall quality of the available evidence was assessed with the GRADE system. One RCT (2 reports) and 6 cohort studies were included (3642 adult patients; 675 receiving WB, 2967 receiving COMP). Three studies were conducted in military setting, and 4 in civilian setting. In the overall analysis, 30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality did not differ significantly between groups (very low quality of the evidence due to high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). After adjustment for baseline covariates in three cohort studies, the OR for mortality was significantly lower in WB recipients compared to COMP (OR 0.22; 95% CIs 0.10/0.45) (moderate grade of evidence). Adverse events and transfusion reactions were overlooked and not consistently reported. The available evidence does not allow to draw definite conclusions on the short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of WB transfusion compared to COMP transfusion. Further well designed research is needed.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with massive trauma bleeding (7 studies, n= 3642).
Intervention
Whole blood (WB) transfusion (n= 675).
Comparison
Blood components (COMP), (n= 2967).
Outcome
In the overall analysis, 30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality did not differ significantly between groups. After adjustment for baseline covariates in three cohort studies, the odds ratio for mortality was significantly lower in WB recipients compared to COMP. Adverse events and transfusion reactions were overlooked and not consistently reported.
-
4.
The use of platelet-rich plasma in oral surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Masiello F, Marano G, D'Aloja E, Dell'Aringa C, Pati I, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(5):357-367
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. RESULTS We found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias. DISCUSSION Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.
-
5.
Red blood cell alloimmunisation in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia: a systematic review
Franchini M, Forni GL, Marano G, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Pinto V, De Franceschi L, Venturelli D, Casale M, Amerini M, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(1):4-15
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic red blood cell transfusion is the first-line treatment for severe forms of thalassaemia. This therapy is, however, hampered by a number of adverse effects, including red blood cell alloimmunisation. The aim of this systematic review was to collect the current literature data on erythrocyte alloimmunisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature which identified 41 cohort studies involving 9,256 patients. RESULTS The prevalence of erythrocyte alloimmunisation was 11.4% (95% CI: 9.3-13.9%) with a higher rate of alloimmunisation against antigens of the Rh (52.4%) and Kell (25.6%) systems. Overall, alloantibodies against antigens belonging to the Rh and Kell systems accounted for 78% of the cases. A higher prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation was found in patients with thalassaemia intermedia compared to that among patients with thalassaemia major (15.5 vs 12.8%). DISCUSSION Matching transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients and red blood cell units for Rh and Kell antigens should be able to reduce the risk of red blood cell alloimmunisation by about 80%.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (41 studies, n= 9,256).
Intervention
Systematic review on the prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation.
Comparison
Outcome
The prevalence of erythrocyte alloimmunisation was 11.4% with a higher rate of alloimmunisation against antigens of the Rh (52.4%) and Kell (25.6%) systems. Overall, alloantibodies against antigens belonging to the Rh and Kell systems accounted for 78% of the cases. A higher prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation was found in patients with thalassaemia intermedia compared to that among patients with thalassaemia major (15.5 vs. 12.8%).
-
6.
Platelet-rich plasma for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries: an umbrella review
Cruciani M, Franchini M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pati I, Masiello F, Profili S, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, Vaglio S, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(6):465-478
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used in different non-transfusion indications due to its role in tissue regeneration and healing. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews (umbrella review) is to provide a summary of the existing research syntheses related to PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews focusing on PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE assessment. RESULTS Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated PRP use for acute muscle injury, and 17 evaluated PRP use for tendon and ligament injury. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the dose and number of PRP injections, and the control groups. Three of the 5 reviews evaluating acute muscle injury concluded that PRP had no effect on the outcomes considered. One review shows superior efficacy of rehabilitation exercise compared to PRP. One review shows that PRP may result in an earlier return to sport for acute grade I-II injury. Eight out of the 17 reviews evaluating PRP for tendon and ligament injuries show a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference in pain and/or function outcome measures favouring PRP compared to controls, although most of the observed differences were small. Adverse events data and quality of life outcomes were rarely analysed or reported in the included studies and were considered clinically insignificant. DISCUSSION In most of the included reviews, the available evidence was judged to be of low/very low quality due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, thus making the level of certainty of these findings low and not adequate to support the general use of PRP in this setting.
-
7.
Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma as conservative treatment in orthopaedics: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pupella S, Veropalumbo E, Masiello F, Pati I, Vaglio S, Liumbruno GM
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del Sangue. 2018;:1-12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in non-surgical orthopaedic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and SCOPUS. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. RESULTS We found 36 randomised controlled trials (2,073 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 20 to 225). Twenty-eight studies included patients with lateral epicondylitis or plantar fasciitis. PRP was compared to local steroids injection (19 studies), saline injection (6 studies), autologous whole blood (4 studies), local anaesthetic injection (3 studies), dry needling injection (3 studies), and to other comparators (4 studies). Primary outcomes were pain and function scores, and adverse events. On average, it is unclear whether or not use of PRP compared to controls reduces pain scores and functional score at short- (up to 3 months) and medium- (4-6 months) term follow-up. The available evidence for all the comparisons was rated as very low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias in most of the selected studies. There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this meta-analysis, which documents the very marginal effectiveness of PRP compared to controls, does not support the use of PRP as conservative treatment in orthopaedics.
-
8.
Is solvent/detergent plasma better than standard fresh-frozen plasma? A systematic review and an expert consensus document
Marietta M, Franchini M, Bindi ML, Picardi F, Ruggeri M, De Silvestro G
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del Sangue. 2016;:1-9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review was performed in order to develop a consensus document on the use of SD-plasma. Moreover, a pharmacoeconomic study was performed in order to assess whether the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP. A multidisciplinary panel used the systematic review and the GRADE methodology to develop evidence-based recommendations on this topic. RESULTS Based on moderate to very low quality evidence, the panel developed the following consensus statements: (i) the panel suggested that SD-plasma is safer than FFP; (ii) the panel could not express for or against a greater efficacy of SD-plasma as compared to FFP; (iii) the panel suggested that in patients undergoing liver transplantation SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP; (iv) the panel suggested that SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP in patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura undergoing plasma-exchange procedures; (v) the panel could not recommend for or against preferring SD-plasma over FFP in critical care patients; and (vi) the panel suggested that the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP. DISCUSSION Data from additional randomised studies are needed to establish more definitive guidelines on the use of SD-plasma.