1.
Apheresis Technique for Acute Hyperlipidemic Pancreatitis: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Lin YF, Yao Y, Xu Y, Huang HB
Digestive diseases and sciences. 2022
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND The apheresis technique is increasingly used in patients with hypertriglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis (HTGP), while its role in this context is still not well established. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of an apheresis therapy compared to usual care in such a patient population. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases up to July 10, 2021. Studies were included if they focused on HTGP treated with or without apheresis technique. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies. The primary outcome was the mortality rate. We also explored the heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and publication bias. RESULTS Sixteen observational studies with 1476 adults were included. The overall quality of included studies was moderate. Despite better TG level reduction with apheresis therapy (mean difference [MD], 12.27 mmol/L, 95% CI, 3.74 to 20.81; I(2) = 78%; P = 0.005), use of apheresis did not reduce the mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.59; P = 0.95) compared with usual care. This result was further confirmed by sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis. The length of stay in hospital (MD, 0.96 days; 95% CI, - 1.22 to 3.14; I(2) = 70%; P = 0.39) and most complications were similar between the groups, while hospital cost was significantly higher in the apheresis group. CONCLUSIONS The apheresis technique did not decrease the mortality in HTGP patients compared with usual care. Until the results of high-quality RCTs are known, these findings do not support the routine use of the apheresis technique in such a patient population.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with hypertriglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis, (16 studies, n= 1,476).
Intervention
Apheresis therapy.
Comparison
Usual care.
Outcome
Despite better triglycerides level reduction with apheresis therapy (mean difference [MD], 12.27 mmol/L), use of apheresis did not reduce the mortality compared with usual care. The length of stay in hospital (MD, 0.96 days) and most complications were similar between the groups, while hospital cost was significantly higher in the apheresis group. The overall quality of included studies was moderate.
2.
Optimal individualized decision rules from a multi-arm trial: A comparison of methods and an application to tailoring inter-donation intervals among blood donors in the UK
Xu Y, Wood AM, Sweeting MJ, Roberts DJ, Tom BD
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;:962280220920669
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
There is a growing interest in precision medicine where individual heterogeneity is incorporated into decision-making and treatments are tailored to individuals to provide better healthcare. One important aspect of precision medicine is the estimation of the optimal individualized treatment rule (ITR) that optimizes the expected outcome. Most methods developed for this purpose are restricted to the setting with two treatments, while clinical studies with more than two treatments are common in practice. In this work, we summarize methods to estimate the optimal ITR in the multi-arm setting and compare their performance in large-scale clinical trials via simulation studies. We then illustrate their utilities with a case study using the data from the INTERVAL trial, which randomly assigned over 20,000 male blood donors from England to one of the three inter-donation intervals (12-week, 10-week, and eight-week) over two years. We estimate the optimal individualized donation strategies under three different objectives. Our findings are fairly consistent across five different approaches that are applied: when we target the maximization of the total units of blood collected, almost all donors are assigned to the eight-week inter-donation interval, whereas if we aim at minimizing the low hemoglobin deferral rates, almost all donors are assigned to donate every 12 weeks. However, when the goal is to maximize the utility score that "discounts" the total units of blood collected by the incidences of low hemoglobin deferrals, we observe some heterogeneity in the optimal inter-donation interval across donors and the optimal donor assignment strategy is highly dependent on the trade-off parameter in the utility function.
PICO Summary
Population
Male blood donors from the INTERVAL trial (n=20574).
Intervention
Simulation using INTERVAL trial data of five different methods of determining personalised inter-donation intervals.
Comparison
Standard inter-donation intervals for all male donors: 12 weeks, 10 weeks, and 8 weeks over two years.
Outcome
Findings were fairly consistent across the different approaches applied: when targeting the maximization of the total units of blood collected, almost all donors are assigned to the 8 weeks inter-donation interval. If aiming at minimizing the low haemoglobin deferral rates, almost all donors are assigned to donate every 12 weeks. When the goal was to maximize the utility score that "discounts" the total units of blood collected by the incidences of low haemoglobin deferrals, there was heterogeneity in the optimal inter-donation interval across donors and the optimal donor assignment strategy was highly dependent on the trade-off parameter in the utility function.
3.
Efficacy of convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe influenza
Xu Z, Zhou J, Huang Y, Liu X, Xu Y, Chen S, Liu D, Lin Z, Liu X, Li Y
Crit Care. 2020;24(1):469
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma administration may be of clinical benefit in patients with severe influenza, but reports on the efficacy of this therapy vary. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the administration of convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza. Healthcare databases were searched in February 2020. All records were screened against eligibility criteria, and the risks of bias were assessed. The primary outcome was the fatality rate. RESULTS A total of 2861 studies were retrieved and screened. Five eligible RCTs were identified. Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2·23; P = 0.87; I(2) = 35%), number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation. This treatment may have the possible benefits of increasing hemagglutination inhibition titers and reducing influenza B viral loads and cytokine levels. No serious adverse events were reported. The included studies were generally of high quality with a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS The administration of convalescent plasma appears safe but may not reduce the mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation in patients with severe influenza.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients hospitalized with severe influenza (5 studies, n= 598).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (H-IVIG).
Comparison
Various comparators (normal intravenous immunoglobulin, standard care, low-titre anti-influenza, placebo).
Outcome
Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation.