1.
Efficacy and safety of double-filtration plasmapheresis treatment of myasthenia gravis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Liu C, Liu P, Ma M, Yang H, Qi G
Medicine. 2021;100(17):e25622
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) treatment of myasthenia gravis (MG) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) on DFPP for MG from database establishment to June 2019. Two researchers independently screened the articles, extracted the data, and cross checked the results. RevMan 5.3 was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS Seven RCTs and 2 CCTs were found comprising 329 patients. The results showed that clinical MG remission rate after DFPP treatment was significantly higher (OR = 4.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.97-9.53; P < .001) and the serum levels of antititin antibody was significantly decreased (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 9.30; 95% CI, 7.51-11.08; P < .001). In addition, the quantitative MG (QMG) score, hospital stay and time to remission of MG symptoms, and acetylcholine receptor antibody (AchRAb) decreased in the DFPP treatment group; however, these outcomes had high heterogeneity among the studies. Only one study has reported on the adverse effects, including hypotension and hematoma. CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that DFPP can be recommended for the short-term mitigation of MG. Because our review was limited by the quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions should be verified by additional high-quality studies.
2.
A prospective trial assessing the safety and efficacy of collecting up to 840 mL of plasma in conjunction with saline infusion during plasmapheresis
Buzza M, Marks DC, Capper H, Cassin E, Badcock CA, Reid S, Kwok M, Yang H, Lee J, Corrigan C, et al
Transfusion. 2012;52((8):):1806-13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The demand for plasma for manufacturing intravenous immunoglobulin and other plasma derivatives is increasing. A prospective study was conducted to determine whether up to 840 mL of plasma could be safely and effectively collected in conjunction with saline infusion during plasmapheresis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Ninety-one plasma donors were enrolled in a modified 3 x 3 crossover study to assess the equivalence of three plasma collection methods: 750 mL of plasma with no saline (control, Method 1), 840 mL of plasma with a 250-mL saline infusion during and at the end of the donation (Method 2), and 800 mL of plasma with a 500-mL saline infusion at the end of the donation (Method 3). The primary efficacy endpoint was the total protein concentration of the collected plasma. Secondary efficacy endpoints were immunoglobulin (Ig)G and Factor (F)VIII plasma concentration and donors' acceptance of the new procedures. Safety was determined from the adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS The total protein, IgG, and FVIII concentrations in plasma collected under Methods 2 and 3 were significantly lower than those in plasma collected under Method 1 (p < 0.0001). These variables were also significantly lower in plasma collected under Method 2 compared to Method 3. During the study, 75 AEs were recorded, 73 of which were mild to moderate. Significantly more donors (31%) preferred Method 2 compared to Method 3 (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS Saline infusion during plasmapheresis led to hemodilution of plasma proteins. However, the benefits to donor safety and satisfaction are compelling reasons to implement saline infusion during plasmapheresis. 2012 American Association of Blood Banks