ABSTRACT
A combination of immunosuppressants may improve outcomes due to the synergistic effect of their different action mechanisms. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best immunosuppressive protocol after liver transplantation. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tacrolimus associated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eight randomized trials were included. The proportion of patients with at least one adverse event related to the immunosuppression scheme with tacrolimus associated with MMF was 39.9%. The tacrolimus with MMF immunosuppression regimen was superior in preventing acute cellular rejection compared with that of tacrolimus alone (risk difference [RD]=-0.11; p =0.001). The tacrolimus plus MMF regimen showed no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to that of tacrolimus alone (RD=0.7; p=0.66) and cyclosporine plus MMF (RD=-0.7; p=0.37). Patients undergoing liver transplantation who received tacrolimus plus MMF had similar adverse events when compared to patients receiving other evaluated immunosuppressive regimens and had a lower risk of acute rejection than those receiving in the monodrug tacrolimus regimen.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Liver Transplantation , Drug Therapy, Combination , Graft Rejection/prevention & control , Humans , Immunosuppression Therapy , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Mycophenolic Acid/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Tacrolimus/adverse effectsABSTRACT
A combination of immunosuppressants may improve outcomes due to the synergistic effect of their different action mechanisms. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best immunosuppressive protocol after liver transplantation. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tacrolimus associated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eight randomized trials were included. The proportion of patients with at least one adverse event related to the immunosuppression scheme with tacrolimus associated with MMF was 39.9%. The tacrolimus with MMF immunosuppression regimen was superior in preventing acute cellular rejection compared with that of tacrolimus alone (risk difference [RD]=-0.11; p =0.001). The tacrolimus plus MMF regimen showed no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to that of tacrolimus alone (RD=0.7; p=0.66) and cyclosporine plus MMF (RD=-0.7; p=0.37). Patients undergoing liver transplantation who received tacrolimus plus MMF had similar adverse events when compared to patients receiving other evaluated immunosuppressive regimens and had a lower risk of acute rejection than those receiving in the monodrug tacrolimus regimen.
Subject(s)
Humans , Kidney Transplantation , Liver Transplantation , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Immunosuppression Therapy , Tacrolimus/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Graft Rejection/prevention & control , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Mycophenolic Acid/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.
