3 results
Filters • 5
Sort By
Results Per Page
Filters
3 results
5
Download the following citations:
Email the following citations:
Print the following citations:
Editor's Choice
  • Amin AM
  • Ali K
  • Elbenawi H
  • Saber A
  • Abuelazm M
  • et al.
Coron Artery Dis. 2024 May 1;35(3):239-251 doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000001349.
POPULATION:

Patients with acute myocardial infarction and anaemia (4 randomised controlled trials, n= 4,325).

INTERVENTION:

Restrictive blood transfusion strategy (n= 2,170).

COMPARISON:

Liberal blood transfusion strategy (n= 2,155).

OUTCOME:

There was no significant difference between both groups regarding major adverse cardiovascular events whether at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% CI [0.57, 1.51]) or ≥ six months (RR 1.17; 95% CI [0.95, 1.45]), all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR 1.16; 95% CI [0.95, 1.40]) or ≥ six months (RR 1.16; 95% CI [0.88, 1.53]). The liberal strategy was significantly associated with increased haemoglobin level change (mean difference: -1.44; 95% CI [-1.68, -1.20]). The restrictive strategy was significantly associated with a lower incidence of acute lung injury (RR 0.11; 95% CI [0.02, 0.60].

BACKGROUND:

Blood transfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and anemia are yet to be conclusively identified. Thus, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies for AMI and anemia.

METHODS:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, web of science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed through November 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). (PROSPERO): ID: CRD42023490692.

RESULTS:

We included four RCTs with 4.325 patients. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding MACE whether at 30 days (RR: 0.93 with 95% CI [0.57-1.51], P  = 0.76) or ≥ six months (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [0.95-1.45], P  = 0.14), all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR: 1.16 with 95% CI [0.95-1.40], P  = 0.14) or ≥ six months (RR: 1.16 with 95% CI [0.88-1.53], P  = 0.28). However, the liberal strategy was significantly associated with increased hemoglobin level change (MD: -1.44 with 95% CI [-1.68 to -1.20], P  < 0.00001). However, the restrictive strategy was significantly associated with a lower incidence of acute lung injury (RR: 0.11 with 95% CI [0.02-0.60], P  = 0.01).

CONCLUSION:

There was no significant difference between the restrictive blood transfusion strategy and the liberal blood transfusion strategy regarding the clinical outcomes. However, restrictive blood transfusion strategy was significantly associated with a lower incidence of acute lung injury than liberal blood transfusion strategy.

Editor's Choice
  • Park HS
  • Yin A
  • Barranta C
  • Lee JS
  • Caputo CA
  • et al.
JCI Insight. 2024 Mar 14;9(8) doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.178460.
POPULATION:

COVID-19 outpatients at 23 centers in the USA (n= 734).

INTERVENTION:

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (n= 366).

COMPARISON:

Control plasma (n= 368).

OUTCOME:

This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within a randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low post-transfusion antibody levels was established by two methods: 1) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike-receptor-binding-domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or 2) receiver operated curve (ROC) analysis. The high antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma) with antibody cutoffs established by both methods: donor-based virus neutralization cutoff in post-transfusion recipients (0/85; 0% versus 15/276; 5.6%) or ROC based cutoff (0/94; 0% versus 15/267; 5.4%).

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors' antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

Editor's Choice
  • Kim D
  • Bashrum BS
  • Kotlier JL
  • Mayfield CK
  • Thompson AA
  • et al.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 Jan 16;6(1):100851 doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100851.
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.

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.