Plasma exchange for acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Plasma exchange (PE) is a promising therapeutic option in patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, the impact of PE on patient survival in these syndromes is unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the use of PE in patients with ALF and ACLF compared with standard medical therapy (SMT). We searched PubMed/Embase/Cochrane databases to include all studies comparing PE versus SMT for patients ≥ 18 years of age with ALF and ACLF. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was 30-day survival for ACLF and ALF. Secondary outcomes were overall and 90-day survival for ALF and ACLF, respectively. Five studies, including 343 ALF patients (n = 174 PE vs. n = 169 SMT), and 20 studies, including 5,705 ACLF patients (n = 2,856 PE vs. n = 2,849 SMT), were analyzed. Compared with SMT, PE was significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.87, p = 0.02) and overall (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12-1.63, p = 0.002) survival in ALF patients. In ACLF, PE was also significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.22-1.52, p < 0.001) and 90-day (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10-1.34, p < 0.001) survival. On subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials, results remained unchanged in ALF, but no differences in survival were found between PE and SMT in ACLF. In conclusion, PE is associated with improved survival in ALF and could improve survival in ACLF. PE may be considered in managing ALF and ACLF patients who are not liver transplant (LT) candidates or as a bridge to LT in otherwise eligible patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the survival benefit of PE in ACLF.

Pulse versus nonpulse steroid regimens in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systemic steroids are associated with reduced mortality in hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on the doses of steroid therapy in these patients. Several studies showed that pulse dose steroids (PDS) could reduce the progression of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, data regarding the role of PDS in COVID-19 is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of PDS in COVID-19 patients compared to nonpulse steroids (NPDS). Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 10, 2022 was performed for all published studies comparing PDS to NPDS therapy to manage hypoxic patients with COVID-19. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse events in the form of superimposed infections. A total of 10 observational studies involving 3065 patients (1289 patients received PDS and 1776 received NPDS) were included. The mortality rate was similar between PDS and NPDS groups (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.65, p = 0.16). There were no differences in the need for endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.71, 95%: CI 0.37-1.137, p = 0.31), LOS (mean difference: 1.93 days; 95% CI: -1.46-5.33; p = 0.26), or adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.57, p = 0.80) between the two groups. Compared to NPDS, PDS was associated with similar mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, LOS, and adverse events. Given the observational nature of the included studies, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Fluvoxamine in Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19 Infection and the Lack of Efficacy in Reducing Rates of Hospitalization, Mechanical Ventilation, and Mortality in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent. STUDY QUESTION: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCE: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index. RESULTS: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P = 0.16, I2 = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P = 0.19, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Efficacy of tocilizumab in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The efficacy of tocilizumab (TOC), monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients has led to conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of addition of TOC to standard of care (SOC) versus SOC in patients with COVID-19. We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO COVID, LitCOVID, and Cochrane databases. Pooled outcomes (overall mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and secondary infections) were compared using DerSimonian-Laird/Random-effects approach. Risk difference (RD), confidence interval (CI), and p values were generated. A total of 23 studies with 6279 patients (1897 in TOC and 4382 in SOC group, respectively) were included. The overall mortality was lower in TOC group compared to SOC group (RD: -0.06; CI: -0.12 to -0.01; p = .03). Subgroup analysis including studies with only severe cases revealed lower mortality (RD: -0.12; CI: -0.18 to -0.06; p < .01) and need for mechanical ventilation (RD: -0.11; CI: -0.19 to -0.02; p = .01) in TOC group compared to SOC group. The addition of TOC to SOC has the potential to reduce mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this.

Lactated Ringer's vs normal saline for acute pancreatitis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have evaluated and compared the efficacy of normal saline (NS) and lactated Ringer's (LR) in reducing the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) and improving outcomes such as length of stay, the occurrence of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), ICU admission and mortality. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the available studies to assess the impact of these fluids on outcomes secondary to AP. METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science through February 8th, 2021 to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Random effects model using DerSimonian-Laird approach was employed and risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: 6 studies (4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies) with 549 (230 in LR and 319 in NS) were included. The overall mortality (RR: 0.73, CI: 0.31-1.69) and SIRS at 24 h (RR: 0.69, CI: 0.32-1.51) was not significantly different. The overall ICU admission was lower in LR group compared to NS group (RR: 0.43, CI: 0.22-0.84). Subgroup analysis of RCTs demonstrated lower length of hospital stay for LR group compared to NS group (MD: 0.77 days, CI: 1.44 -0.09 days). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that LR improved outcomes (ICU admission and length of stay) in patients with AP compared to NS. There was no difference in rate of SIRS development and mortality between LR and NS treatments.

Legionella pneumophila as a cause of cavitary lung disease in systemic lupus erythematous.

Legionnaire's disease (LD) is most commonly caused by Legionella pneumophila (L. pneumophila). In immunocompromised patients LD can cause necrosis of the lung parenchyma with abscess formation and cavitation. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disorder with features of both primary and secondary immunodeficiency. SLE patients often develop pulmonary abnormalities, but rarely develop lung cavitations. We report a case of cavitary pneumonia caused by L. pneumophila in a 64-year-old female patient with SLE. We also highlight reasons why SLE patients are more prone to L. pneumophila infections. The importance of using correct diagnostic methods for recognizing and treating such infections is also discussed, as mistreatment of cavitary lesions in SLE patients with steroid therapy can have fatal outcomes as the infectious process can significantly worsen.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) may develop in systolic heart failure or after acute myocardial infarction. The current recommendations support the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of LVT. Limited data exist regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with LVT. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs for LVT. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through November 2020 for all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with LVT. The primary outcomes were LVT resolution, overall thromboembolic events, and thromboembolic stroke. The secondary outcomes were major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies including 2153 patients with LVT on anticoagulation (570 on DOACs vs. 1583 on VKAs) were included. LVT resolution was significantly higher in DOACs compared with VKAs [RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04-1.35); P = 0.01, I2 = 25%]. However, no significant difference existed between DOACs and VKAs regarding overall thromboembolic events [RR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.75-1.62); P = 0.61, I2 = 0%] and thromboembolic stroke [RR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.39-1.02); P = 0.06, I2 = 0%]. Major bleeding [RR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.66-1.51); P = 0.99, I2 = 4%] and all-cause mortality [RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50-1.43); P = 0.53, I2 = 0%] were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs seem to be more efficacious in achieving LVT resolution compared with VKAs. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Morbidly Obese Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly preferred over warfarin; however, The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis recommended avoiding the use of DOACs in morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 or weight >120 kg) because of limited clinical data. STUDY QUESTION: Are DOACs effective and safe in morbidly obese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search for published studies indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with NVAF. STUDY DESIGN: Information on patient characteristics, comorbidities, primary anticoagulation indications, pharmacologic treatment, and outcomes were collected. The primary outcome of interest was stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) rate. The secondary outcome was major bleeding (MB). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies including, 89,494 morbidly obese patients with NVAF on oral anticoagulation therapy (45,427 on DOACs vs. 44,067 on warfarin) were included in the final analysis. The SSE rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared with warfarin group [odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.81; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%]. MB rate was also significantly lower in DOACs group compared with the warfarin group (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46-0.78; P < 0.0001; I2 = 86%). On subgroup analysis, SSE and MB event rates were significantly lower in rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin; however, dabigatran showed noninferiority to warfarin in SSE rate but superiority in the safety outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that DOACs are effective and safe with statistical superiority when compared with warfarin in morbidly obese patients. Large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in this cohort of patients.