Impact of cytokine storm on severity of COVID-19 disease in a private hospital in West Jakarta prior to vaccination.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a worldwide pandemic and is a threat to global health. Patients who experienced cytokine storms tend to have a high mortality rate. However, to date, no study has investigated the impact of cytokine storms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included only COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized in a Private Hospital in West Jakarta between March and September 2020. All patients were not vaccinated during this period and treatment was based on the guidelines by the Ministry of Health Indonesia. A convenience sampling method was used and all patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. RESULTS: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients following medical therapy was either cured (85.7%) or died (14.3%), with 14.3% patients reported to have cytokine storm, from which 23.1% led to fatalities. A plasma immunoglobulin (Gammaraas®) and/or tocilizumab (interleukin-6 receptor antagonist; Actemra®) injection was utilised to treat the cytokine storm while remdesivir and oseltamivir were administered to ameliorate COVID-19. Most (61.5%) patients who experienced the cytokine storm were male; mean age 60 years. Interestingly, all patients who experienced the cytokine storm had hypertension or/ and diabetes complication (100%). Fever, cough and shortness of breath were also the common symptoms (100.0%). Almost all (92.3%) patients with cytokine storm had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most (76.9%) patients who had cytokine storm received hydroxychloroquine and all had antibiotics [1) azithromycin + levofloxacin or 2) meropenam for critically ill patients] and vitamins such as vitamins C and B-complex as well as mineral. Unfortunately, from this group, 23.1% patients died while the remaining 70% of patients recovered. A significant (p<0.05) correlation was established between cytokine storms and age, the presence of comorbidity, diabetes, hypertension, fever, shortness of breath, having oxygen saturation (SPO2) less than 93%, cold, fatigue, ward of admission, the severity of COVID-19 disease, duration of treatment as well as the use of remdesivir, Actemra® and Gammaraas®. Most patients recovered after receiving a combination treatment (oseltamivir + remdesivir + Antibiotics + Vitamin/Mineral) for approximately 11 days with a 90% survival rate. On the contrary, patients who received oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + Gammaraas® + antibiotics +Vitamin/Mineral, had a 83% survival rate after being admitted to the hospital for about ten days. CONCLUSION: Factors influencing the development of a cytokine storm include age, duration of treatment, comorbidity, symptoms, type of admission ward and severity of infection. Most patients (76.92%) with cytokine storm who received Gammaraas®/Actemra®, survived although they were in the severe and critical levels (87.17%). Overall, based on the treatment duration and survival rate, the most effective therapy was a combination of oseltamivir + favipiravir + hydroxychloroquine + antibiotics + vitamins/minerals.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Early experience with convalescent plasma as immunotherapy for COVID-19 in China: Knowns and unknowns.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a vaccine or specific drug treatment options for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), attention has been shifted in China to the possible therapeutic use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation. We summarized clinical studies and other research data available as of 5 May 2020 on CCP therapy according to the Clinical Treatment Guideline of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in China, as well as clinical experience at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, as part of a comprehensive anti-epidemic strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As of 5 May 2020, when the epidemic was well-controlled in China, healthcare databases and sources of English literature relating to convalescent plasma were searched and reviewed. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. RESULTS: As of 5 May 2020, up to 2000 samples of CCP had been collected across China and administered to 700 COVID-19 patients. From donors, 200-400 ml of plasma was collected at each donation, with antibody titres > 1:160. We identified three clinical studies for COVID-19 in China. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with untreated cases (P < 0.001). No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: From initial studies, convalescent plasma therapy appears effective and safe for COVID-19. However, there is clearly a need for well-designed RCTs (randomized controlled trials) or other formal studies to further evaluate the efficacy and any potential adverse effects of CCP.

Issues of human rabies immunoglobulin and vaccine: policy versus practice.

A retrospective audit was conducted of all issues of rabies vaccine or human rabies immunoglobulin (HRIG) from the Clinical Microbiology Department at University Hospital Aintree for post-exposure prophylaxis. The appropriateness of management was reviewed by a blinded panel, which used guidelines issued by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) as a standard. Thirty-six enquiries, on average 9 days following exposure, led to issues of HRIG, rabies vaccine or both. Dog bites accounted for the majority of incidents. In no cases was the biting animal recorded as having been observed for signs of rabies. Management was judged to have been inappropriate in 9 cases, and documentation was judged to have been unsatisfactory in 13 cases. This study has highlighted several areas of ambiguity in the current guidelines, and a number of deficiencies in the information prompted by the standardized proformas used to deal with post-exposure queries.

[The assessment of efficacy of hepatitis B prophylaxis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia]. / Ocena skutecznosci profilaktyki wirusowego zapalenia watroby typu B u dzieci z ostra bialaczka limfoblastyczna.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of hepatitis B prophylaxis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and to try to determine the optimal procedure of protection against the infection. The retrospective analysis included 229 patients with ALL divided into three groups depending on the type of anti-HBV prophylaxis. The group 1 (1990-91, 38 patients) received only sporadically passive prophylaxis, in the group 2 (1992-94, 55 patients) passive prophylaxis was regular, and the patients of the group 3 (1995-2001, 138 children) received complete active and passive prophylaxis. Among vaccinated children three subgroups were additionally distinguished: subgroup a--vaccination was completed before the disease, subgroup b--the cycle of vaccination began before and continued during the therapy, subgroup c--the whole cycle of vaccination was performed during the ALL treatment. The efficacy of the prophylaxis was evaluated taking into account the incidence of hepatitis B and the level of anti-HBs antibodies in vaccinated children. Additionally the incidence of hepatitis C was assessed to evaluate the role of unspecific prophylaxis. The incidence of hepatitis B in the group 1, 2, and 3 was: 57.9%, 23.6%, and 0.76%, respectively, and the incidence of hepatitis C: 44.7%, 36.4%, and 5.9%, respectively. The percent of the failure of active prophylaxis in the subgroup a, b, and c was: 29%, 53%, and 93%, respectively. In spite of the reduction of exposure to the infection (unspecific prophylaxis), the role of specific prophylaxis is essential. The program of passive and active prophylaxis used by us is efficient in preventing hepatitis B in children with ALL. However, during the intensive chemotherapy only passive prophylaxis should be used with postponement of the vaccination because of very low response to the vaccination applied in this phase of treatment. Regular control of anti-HBs antibodies' level is essential in all patients with leukemia even in those with initially high level of antibodies.

Factors affecting the compliance of the antenatal hepatitis B screening programme in Italy.

The effectiveness in the prevention of perinatally transmitted HBV infection was assessed in 11858 pregnant women consecutively recruited in public and private hospitals in six Italian regions during a 2 months period in 2001. Of them 10881 (91.8%) attended HBsAg antenatal screening. The overall HBsAg prevalence was 1.7% (CI 95%: 1.4-1.9); it was 1.4% (CI 95%: 1.2-1.7) in pregnant women born in Italy but 5.9% (CI 95%: 4.1-8.1) in those born in Asia, Africa, central and south America, and eastern Europe. Results of multiple logistic regression analysis indicate that birth in foreign countries (OR 2.0; CI 95%: 1.3-3.0), family size with more than 4 members in the household (OR 3.5; CI 95%:2.7-4.6), and birth in a private hospital (OR 1.9; CI 95%: 1.3-2.8) were all independent predictors of lack of adherence to HBsAg screening. Out of the 182 new-borns of HBsAg positive mothers 172 (95.0%) were given active plus passive immunisation; this figure was 100% in new-borns of foreign mothers. These findings evidence a good effectiveness in the prevention of perinatally transmitted HBV in Italy. More efforts should be addressed to improve the effectiveness of the programme among foreign pregnant women who have high rate of HBsAg and more likely escape HBsAg screening than Italian pregnant women.

Clinical usage of intravenous immunoglobulins in Auckland.

AIMS: To review the indications for prescription of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), in Auckland and the associated adverse effects. METHODS: All patients who received IVIg infusions in four major hospitals in Auckland in 1996 were identified from blood bank records. Clinical details were recorded from case notes. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five cases were identified and 131 records were available for review. Hypogammaglobulinaemia (n = 38) and thrombocytopenia (n = 38) were the two most common indications for 44% of Primary hypogammaglobulinaemia accounted for IVIg. the IVIg prescribed. IVIg was only used in one patient with hypogammaglobulinaemia secondary to chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and in one case of graft-versus-host disease. Adverse reactions were noted in 13 cases (10%). Headache (n = 4) and fever (n = 4) were the most commonly recorded side-effects. One patient developed acute renal failure after IVIg infusion. Written consent was documented in 7 patients (5%). CONCLUSIONS: The indications for IVIg prescription were generally consistent with the recommendations of the Australasian Society of Blood Transfusion. Use of IVIg in haematological conditions other than immune thrombocytopaenic purpura was infrequent. Most of the IVIg infusions were administered uneventfully but some minor side effects were recorded and one significant clinical event may have been causally related to IVIg infusion.

A number-needed-to-treat analysis of the use of respiratory syncytial virus immune globulin to prevent hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate how many infants in selected high-risk subgroups would require treatment with respiratory syncytial virus immune globulin (RSV-IG) to avoid 1 hospital admission and to determine whether this is economically justified. DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis. Data from 3 randomized controlled trials of RSV-IG are used to estimate the number needed to treat to prevent 1 hospital admission for respiratory syncytial virus infection. The threshold number needed to treat is computed according to a formula incorporating costs and benefits of RSV-IG prophylaxis. Estimates of the willingness to pay were obtained from a sample of 39 health care providers (35 physicians and 4 nurses). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number needed to treat to prevent 1 hospital admission for respiratory syncytial virus infection. The threshold number needed to treat that would balance costs with benefits. RESULTS: More than 16 (95% confidence interval, 12.5-23.8) infants would need to be treated with RSV-IG to avoid 1 hospital admission for respiratory syncytial virus infection, ranging from 63 for premature infants without chronic lung disease to 12 (confidence interval, 6.3-100.0) for infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. A sensitivity analysis of the costs and values of hospital admission for respiratory syncytial virus infection and RSV-IG treatment resulted in a weak recommendation against the treatment of infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia and strong recommendations that the costs and risks of RSV-IG treatment outweigh the benefits for the combined sample of infants and premature infants without lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: The number-needed-to-treat procedures offer a method to assess evidence of treatment effects and decision rules for whether to accept treatment recommendations. Under plausible assumptions, treatment with RSV-IG is not recommended for infants without lung disease. Institutions can examine cost and benefit assumptions that best fit their own practice setting.