Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

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.

Endoluminal flow diverters in the treatment of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and angiographic outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of endoluminal flow diversion in bifurcation aneurysms has been questioned due to the potential for complications and lower occlusion rates. In this study we assessed outcomes of endovascular treatment of intracranial sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms with flow diverters. METHODS: In July 2020, a literature search for all studies utilizing endoluminal flow diverter treatment for sidewall or bifurcation aneurysms was performed. Data were collected from studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers and confirmed by a third reviewer. Using random-effects meta-analysis the target outcomes including overall complications (hematoma, ischemic events, minor ischemic stroke, aneurysm rupture, side vessel occlusion, stenosis, thrombosis, transient ischemic stroke, and other complications), perioperative complications, and follow-up (long-term) aneurysm occlusion were intestigated. RESULTS: Overall, we included 35 studies with 1084 patients with 1208 aneurysms. Of these aneurysms, 654 (54.14%) and 554 (45.86%) were classified as sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm, respectively, based on aneurysm location. Sidewall aneurysms had a similar total complication rate (R) of 27.12% (95% CI, 16.56%-41.09%), compared with bifurcation aneurysms (R, 20.40%, 95% CI, 13.24%-30.08%) (p = 0.3527). Follow-up angiographic outcome showed comparable complete occlusion rates for sidewall aneurysms (R 69.49%; 95%CI, 62.41%-75.75%) and bifurcation aneurysms (R 73.99%; 95% CI, 65.05%-81.31%; p = 0.4328). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms treated with endoluminal flow diverters demonstrated no significant differences in complications or occlusion rates. These data provide new information that can be used as a benchmark for comparison with emerging devices for the treatment of bifurcation aneurysms.

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

Outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients compared to the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). EXPERT OPINION: Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: -7.0 [95% CI: -14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: -5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: -5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events.Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment.Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.