Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange in patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the existing evidence and to quantitatively synthesise evidence on the impact of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) on severe COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316331). We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception until 1 June 2022. We included studies comparing patients who received TPE versus those who received the standard treatment. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, the ROBINS1 tool, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies, respectively. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio in the random effect model with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Thirteen studies (one randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 12 non-RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 829 patients. There is a moderate-quality evidence from one RCT that TPE reduces the lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (SMD -1.09, 95% CI [-1.59 to -0.60]), D-dimer (SMD -0.86, 95% CI [-1.34 to -0.37]), and ferritin (SMD -0.70, 95% CI [-1.18 to -0.23]), and increases the absolute lymphocyte count (SMD 0.54, 95% CI [0.07-1.01]), There is low-quality evidence from mixed-design studies that TPE was associated with lower mortality (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI [0.35-0.74]), lower IL-6 (SMD -0.91, 95% CI [-1.19 to -0.63]), and lower ferritin (SMD -0.51, 95% CI [-0.80 to -0.22]) compared to the standard control. Among severely affected COVID-19 patients, TPE might provide benefits such as decreasing the mortality rate, LDH, D-dimer, IL-6, and ferritin, in addition to increasing the higher absolute lymphocyte count. Further well-designed RCTs are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine-Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine-Propofol Combination for Periprocedural Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The combination of ketamine with propofol and dexmedetomidine has gained popularity for sedation and general anesthesia in different populations. In our meta-nalysis, we helped the anesthesiologists to know the efficiency and the efficacy of both combinations in adult and pediatric patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 1, 2023. Our outcome parameters for efficacy were recovery time, pain score, and physician satisfaction while for safety were the related cardiorespiratory, neurological, and gastrointestinal adverse events. RECENT FINDINGS: Twenty-two trials were included with a total of 1429 patients. We found a significantly longer recovery time in the ketadex group of 7.59 min (95% CI, 4.92, 10.26; I2 = 94%) and a significantly less pain score of - 0.72 (95% CI, - 1.10, - 0.34; I2 = 0%). Adults had a significantly better physician satisfaction score with the ketofol group, odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12, 0.71; I2 = 0%). Recovery agitations were higher in the ketofol group with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.24, 0.98; I2 = 36%). Furthermore, we found a significant difference between the combinations with a higher incidence in the ketadex group with pooled odds ratio of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.06, 2.88; I2 = 15%). Ketadex was associated with lower pain scores, hypoxic events and airway obstruction, and emergence agitation. At the same time, ketofol had much more clinician satisfaction which might be attributed to the shorter recovery time and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting. Therefore, we suppose that ketadex is the better combination in periprocedural sedation for both adult and pediatric patients who are not at greater risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Association between sarcoidosis and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Sarcoidosis is multisystem inflammatory granulomatosis that can potentially affect any organ of the human body. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in sarcoidosis patients and determine the association between sarcoidosis and DM.Method: All relevant articles reporting the prevalence of DM in sarcoidosis published until September 19th, 2020, were retrieved from ten electronic databases. We used the random effect model to perform the meta-analysis.Results: After screening 2,122 records, we included 19 studies (n = 18,686,162). The prevalence of DM in sarcoidosis patients was 12.7% (95% CI 10-16.1). The prevalence was highest in North America with 21.3% (13.5-31.8), followed by Europe 10.4 (7.9-13.7) and Asia 10% (1.8-39.7). Sarcoidosis patients had higher rates of DM compared to controls (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.49-2.05). Sensitivity analysis, after removing the largest weighted study, did not reveal any effect on the significance of the results (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.33-2.25).Conclusion: The prevalence of DM in sarcoidosis is considerably high, with increased odds of DM in sarcoidosis compared to healthy controls. Further research with a wide range of confounders is required to confirm the association of sarcoidosis with DM.