Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted. RESULTS: Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77%) and "need for further resources" (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020214247.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: For this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Measurement of Free Plasma Concentrations of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics: An Applicability Study in Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial effect of antibiotics is linked to the free drug concentration. This study investigated the applicability of an ultrafiltration method to determine free plasma concentrations of beta-lactam antibiotics in ICU patients. METHODS: Eligible patients included adult ICU patients treated with ceftazidime (CAZ), meropenem (MEM), piperacillin (PIP)/tazobactam (TAZ), or flucloxacillin (FXN) by continuous infusion. Up to 2 arterial blood samples were drawn at steady state. Patients could be included more than once if they received another antibiotic. Free drug concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection after ultrafiltration, using a method that maintained physiological conditions (pH 7.4/37°C). Total drug concentrations were determined to calculate the unbound fraction. In a post-hoc analysis, free concentrations were compared with the target value of 4× the epidemiological cut-off value (ECOFF) for Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a worst-case scenario for empirical therapy with CAZ, MEM or PIP/tazobactam and against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus for targeted therapy with FXN. RESULTS: Fifty different antibiotic treatment periods in 38 patients were evaluated. The concentrations of the antibiotics showed a wide range because of the fixed dosing regimen in a mixed population with variable kidney function. The mean unbound fractions (fu) of CAZ, MEM, and PIP were 102.5%, 98.4%, and 95.7%, with interpatient variability of <6%. The mean fu of FXN was 11.6%, with interpatient variability of 39%. It was observed that 2 of 12 free concentrations of CAZ, 1 of 40 concentrations of MEM, and 11 of 23 concentrations of PIP were below the applied target concentration of 4 × ECOFF for P. aeruginosa. All concentrations of FXN (9 samples from 6 patients) were >8 × ECOFF for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. CONCLUSIONS: For therapeutic drug monitoring purposes, measuring total or free concentrations of CAZ, MEM, or PIP is seemingly adequate. For highly protein-bound beta-lactams such as FXN, free concentrations should be favored in ICU patients with prevalent hypoalbuminemia.

Determination of free clindamycin, flucloxacillin or tedizolid in plasma: Pay attention to physiological conditions when using ultrafiltration.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices of anti-infective drugs should be referenced to free drug concentrations. In the present study, clindamycin, flucloxacillin and tedizolid have been determined in human plasma by HPLC-UV. The drugs were separated isocratically within 3-6 min on a C18 column using mixtures of phosphate buffer-acetonitrile of pH 7.1-7.2. Sample treatment for the determination of total drug concentrations in plasma included extraction/back-extraction (clindamycin) or protein precipitation (flucloxacillin, tedizolid). The free drug concentrations were determined after ultrafiltration. An ultrafiltration device with a membrane consisting of regenerated cellulose proved to be suitable for all drugs. Maintaining a physiological pH was crucial for clindamycin, whereas maintaining body temperature was essential for tedizolid. The methods were applied to the analysis of total and free drug concentrations in clinical samples and were sufficiently sensitive for pharmacokinetic studies and therapeutic drug monitoring.

Determination of total or free cefazolin and metronidazole in human plasma or interstitial fluid by HPLC-UV for pharmacokinetic studies in man.

Cefazolin (CFZ) plus metronidazole (MTZ) is commonly used for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. An HPLC-UV method is described for the simultaneous determination of total or free cefazolin and metronidazole in human plasma or in microdialysate of subcutaneous tissue. Separation was performed isocratically using a reversed phase column and phosphate buffer/acetonitrile as mobile phase. The validation characteristics were similar for both drugs. Linearity has been shown down to 0.1 mg/L (R > 0.9990). Intra- and inter-assay precision (CV) and in-accuracy were < 5%. The method was applied to the determination of cefazolin and metronidazole in plasma and microdialysate of surgical patients following 30-min intravenous infusion of cefazolin/metronidazole 2.0/0.5 g.

Determination of total and free ceftolozane and tazobactam in human plasma and interstitial fluid by HPLC-UV.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam is a new cephalosporin/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination. An HPLC-UV method is described for the determination of total and free ceftolozane and tazobactam in human plasma and in microdialysate of subcutaneous tissue, respectively. Separation was performed using a reversed-phase column with phosphate buffer/acetonitrile as eluent and photometric detection at 260 nm (ceftolozane) or 220 nm (tazobactam). Linearity has been shown down to ceftolozane/tazobactam 0.1/0.05 mg/L in plasma and 0.03/0.015 mg/L in saline, respectively. The plasma protein binding of both drugs as determined by ultrafiltration was less than 10%. Temperature, pH or relative centrifugation force (up to 3000 x g) had no significant impact on the protein binding. The method was applied to the determination of ceftolozane and tazobactam in plasma and interstitial fluid of healthy volunteers following intravenous infusion of ceftolozane/tazobactam 1.0/0.5 g.