Maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies following assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 802 462 pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: ART is associated with higher rates of twin pregnancies than singleton pregnancies. Whether twin pregnancies conceived following ART have additional maternal and neonatal complications compared with non-ART twin pregnancies is not known. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective was to quantify the risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes among twin pregnancies conceived following ART compared with non-ART and natural conception. Existing reviews vary in the reported outcomes, with many studies including triplet pregnancies in the study population. Therefore, we aimed to perform an up-to-date review with an in-depth analysis of maternal and perinatal outcomes limited to twin pregnancies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to May 2023 without language restrictions. All cohort studies reporting maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART compared with non-ART twin pregnancies and natural conception were included. Case-control studies, case reports, case series, animal studies, and in vitro studies were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Using random-effects meta-analysis, the estimates were pooled and the findings were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. OUTCOMES: We included 111 studies (802 462 pregnancies). Twin pregnancies conceived following ART were at higher risk of preterm birth at <34 weeks (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.56, 29 studies, I2 = 73%), <37 weeks (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.19-1.33, 70 studies, I2 = 76%), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.46, 59 studies, I2 = 87%), gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48-1.75, 51 studies, I2 = 65%), and caesarean delivery (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.65-1.97, 70 studies, I2 = 89%) compared with non-ART twins. The risks for the above maternal outcomes were also increased in the ART group compared with natural conception. Of the perinatal outcomes, ART twins were at significantly increased risk of congenital malformations (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, 39 studies, I2 = 59%), birthweight discordance (>25% (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.63, 7 studies, I2 = 0%)), respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60, 16 studies, I2 = 61%), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14-1.35, 32 studies, I2 = 87%) compared with non-ART twins. When comparing ART with natural conception, the risk of respiratory distress syndrome, intensive care admissions, and birthweight discordance >25% was higher among the ART group. Perinatal complications, such as stillbirth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, 33 studies, I2 = 49%), small for gestational age <10th centile (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95, 26 studies, I2 = 36%), and twin-twin transfusion syndrome (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.82, 9 studies, I2 = 25%), were reduced in twin pregnancies conceived with ART versus those without ART. The above perinatal complications were also fewer amongst the ART group than natural conception. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: ART twin pregnancies are associated with higher maternal complications than non-ART pregnancies and natural conception, with varied perinatal outcomes. Women seeking ART should be counselled about the increased risks of ART twin pregnancies and should be closely monitored in pregnancy for complications. We recommend exercising caution when interpreting the study findings owing to the study's limitations.

Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in acute-on-chronic liver failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials / Factor estimulante de colonias de granulocitos en el fallo hepático agudo sobre crónico: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de estudios aleatorizados controlados

Background and aims: A dysfunctional immune response is key to the pathogenesis of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). It has been suggested that treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases survival in patients with ACLF by improving immune cell dysfunction and promoting liver regeneration. The aim of the study is to evaluate the survival benefit associated with G-CSF administration compared with standard medical therapy (SMT) in ACLF. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was survival at 60–90 days. We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021. Manual searches of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings were also included. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality and risk of bias assessment. Two independent investigators extracted the data, and disagreements were solved by a third collaborator. Results: The initial search identified 142 studies. Four randomized controlled trials were selected for quantitative analysis including 310 patients (154 G-CSF and 156 SMT). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I2=74%, Chi2=11.57, p=0.009). G-CSF administration did not improve survival in patients with ACLF (random-effects model, risk ratio=0.64 [95% CI 0.39, 1.07]). However, when considering only the results from the studies performed in Asia, a significant decrease on mortality was observed (risk ratio=0.53 [95% CI 0.35, 0.81]). Severity scores (MELD and Child) and CD34+ peripheral cells mobilization did not significantly improve with G-CSF. Conclusion. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, G-CSF administration did not significantly improve overall survival compared to SMT in patients with ACLF...(AU)

Antecedentes y objetivos: La respuesta inmune disfuncional es clave en la patogénesis del fallo hepático agudo sobre crónico (ACLF). Se ha sugerido que la utilización de factor estimulante de colonias de granulocitos (G-CSF) aumenta la supervivencia de los pacientes con ACLF al mejorar la disfunción inmune y promover la regeneración hepática. El objetivo del estudio es evaluar el beneficio en supervivencia que proporciona la administración de G-CSF en comparación con el tratamiento médico estándar (SMT) en pacientes con ACLF. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de estudios aleatorizados y controlados. El objetivo principal fue analizar la supervivencia a los 60-90 días. Se realizó una búsqueda en Ovid Medline, EMBASE, y el registro central de estudios controlados de Cochrane desde su inicio hasta agosto 2021. También se realizaron búsquedas manuales en la bibliografía de artículos relevantes y presentaciones a congresos. Se utilizó la herramienta revisada de Cochrane para analizar la calidad y el riesgo de sesgos. Los datos fueron extraídos por dos investigadores independientes y las discrepancias fueron resueltas por un tercer investigador. Resultados: La búsqueda inicial identificó 142 estudios. De estos, 4 aleatorizados y controlados fueron elegidos para el análisis cuantitativo, incluyendo un total de 310 pacientes (154 G-CSF y 156 SMT). Se objetivó un alto grado de heterogeneidad entre los estudios (I2 = 74%, Chi 2 = 11.57, p = 0.009). La administración de G-CSF no aumentó la supervivencia en el grupo de pacientes con ACLF (modelo de efectos aleatorios, risk ratio = 0.64 [95% CI 0.39, 1.07]). Sin embargo, cuando se analizó el subgrupo de estudios realizados en Asia, sí se objetivó una disminución significativa de la mortalidad (risk ratio = 0.53 [95% CI 0.35, 0.81]). Las escalas de gravedad (MELD y Child) y la movilización de células CD34+ periféricas no mejoró significativamente tras la administración de G-CSF....(AU)

Contribution of Low CD4 Cell Counts and High Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Viral Load to the Efficacy of Preferred First-Line Antiretroviral Regimens for Treating HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We assessed whether low CD4 count and high viral load (VL) affect the response to currently preferred ART. We performed a systematic review of randomized, controlled clinical trials that analyzed preferred first-line ART and a subgroup analysis by CD4 count (≤ or >200 CD4/µL) or VL (≤ or >100 000 copies/mL). We computed the odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure (TF) for each subgroup and individual treatment arm. Patients with ≤200 CD4 cells or VL ≥100 000 copies/mL showed an increased likelihood of TF at 48 weeks: OR, 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-2.61 and OR, 1.75; 95% CI: 1.30-2.35, respectively. A similar increase in the risk of TF was observed at 96 weeks. There was no significant heterogeneity regarding integrase strand transfer inhibitor or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Our results show that CD4 <200 cells/µL and VL ≥100,000 copies/mL impair ART efficacy in all preferred regimens.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in acute-on-chronic liver failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A dysfunctional immune response is key to the pathogenesis of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). It has been suggested that treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases survival in patients with ACLF by improving immune cell dysfunction and promoting liver regeneration. The aim of the study is to evaluate the survival benefit associated with G-CSF administration compared with standard medical therapy (SMT) in ACLF. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was survival at 60-90 days. We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021. Manual searches of reference lists in relevant articles and conference proceedings were also included. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality and risk of bias assessment. Two independent investigators extracted the data, and disagreements were solved by a third collaborator. RESULTS: The initial search identified 142 studies. Four randomized controlled trials were selected for quantitative analysis including 310 patients (154 G-CSF and 156 SMT). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I2=74%, Chi2=11.57, p=0.009). G-CSF administration did not improve survival in patients with ACLF (random-effects model, risk ratio=0.64 [95% CI 0.39, 1.07]). However, when considering only the results from the studies performed in Asia, a significant decrease on mortality was observed (risk ratio=0.53 [95% CI 0.35, 0.81]). Severity scores (MELD and Child) and CD34+ peripheral cells mobilization did not significantly improve with G-CSF. CONCLUSION: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, G-CSF administration did not significantly improve overall survival compared to SMT in patients with ACLF. The beneficial effects observed in Asian studies, as opposed to the European region, suggest that specific populations may benefit from further research aiming to identify certain subgroups with favourable outcomes when using G-CSF.

Global variations in the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its outcomes in pregnant women by geographical region and country's income status: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of COVID-19 and its impact varied between countries and regions. Pregnant women are at high risk of COVID-19 complications compared with non-pregnant women. The magnitude of variations, if any, in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and its health outcomes among pregnant women by geographical regions and country's income level is not known. METHODS: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis as part of the ongoing PregCOV-19 living systematic review (December 2019 to April 2021). We included cohort studies on pregnant women with COVID-19 reporting maternal (mortality, intensive care admission and preterm birth) and offspring (mortality, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care admission) outcomes and grouped them by World Bank geographical region and income level. We reported results as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 311 studies (2 003 724 pregnant women, 57 countries). The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women varied significantly by region (p<0.001) and income level (p<0.001), with the highest rates observed in Latin America and the Caribbean (19%, 95% CI 12% to 27%; 13 studies, 38 748 women) and lower-middle-income countries (13%, 95% CI 6% to 23%; 25 studies, 100 080 women). We found significant differences in maternal and offspring outcomes by region and income level. Lower-middle-income countries reported significantly higher rates of maternal mortality (0.68%, 95% CI 0.24% to 1.27%; 3 studies, 31 136 women), intensive care admission (4.53%, 95% CI 2.57% to 6.91%; 54 studies, 23 420 women) and stillbirths (1.09%, 95% CI 0.48% to 1.88%; 41 studies, 4724 women) than high-income countries. COVID-19 complications disproportionately affected South Asia, which had the highest maternal mortality rate (0.88%, 95% CI 0.16% to 1.95%; 17 studies, 2023 women); Latin America and the Caribbean had the highest stillbirth rates (1.97%, 95% CI 0.9% to 3.33%; 10 studies, 1750 women). CONCLUSION: The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women vary globally, and its health outcomes mirror the COVID-19 burden and global maternal and offspring inequalities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

The COVID-19 pandemic effect on the prehospital Madrid stroke code metrics and diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Only very few studies have investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pre-hospital stroke code protocol. During the first wave, Spain was one of the most affected countries by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease pandemic. This health catastrophe overshadowed other pathologies, such as acute stroke, the leading cause of death among women and the leading cause of disability among adults. Any interference in the stroke code protocol can delay the administration of reperfusion treatment for acute ischemic strokes, leading to a worse patient prognosis. We aimed to compare the performance of the stroke code during the first wave of the pandemic with the same period of the previous year. METHODS: This was a multicentre interrupted time-series observational study of the cohort of stroke codes of SUMMA 112 and of the ten hospitals with a stroke unit in the Community of Madrid. We established two groups according to the date on which they were attended: the first during the dates with the highest daily cumulative incidence of the first wave of the COVID-19 (from February 27 to June 15, 2020), and the second, the same period of the previous year (from February 27 to June 15, 2019). To assess the performance of the stroke code, we compared each of the pre-hospital emergency service time periods, the diagnostic accuracy (proportion of stroke codes with a final diagnosis of acute stroke out of the total), the proportion of patients treated with reperfusion therapies, and the in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: SUMMA 112 activated the stroke code in 966 patients (514 in the pre-pandemic group and 452 pandemic). The call management time increased by 9% (95% CI: -0.11; 0.91; p value = 0.02), and the time on scene increased by 12% (95% CI: 2.49; 5.93; p value = <0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, and the proportion of patients treated with reperfusion therapies remained stable. In-hospital mortality decreased by 4% (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave, a prolongation of the time "on the scene" of the management of the 112 calls, and of the hospital admission was observed. Prehospital diagnostic accuracy and the proportion of patients treated at the hospital level with intravenous thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy were not altered with respect to the previous year, showing the resilience of the stroke network and the emergency medical service.

Development and evaluation of a search filter to identify prognostic factor studies in Ovid MEDLINE.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are valuable resources as they address specific clinical questions by summarizing all existing relevant studies. However, finding all information to include in systematic reviews can be challenging. Methodological search filters have been developed to find articles related to specific clinical questions. To our knowledge, no filter exists for finding studies on the role of prognostic factor (PF). We aimed to develop and evaluate a search filter to identify PF studies in Ovid MEDLINE that has maximum sensitivity. METHODS: We followed current recommendations for the development of a search filter by first identifying a reference set of PF studies included in relevant systematic reviews on the topic, and by selecting search terms using a word frequency analysis complemented with an expert panel discussion. We evaluated filter performance using the relative recall methodology. RESULTS: We constructed a reference set of 73 studies included in six systematic reviews from a larger sample. After completing a word frequency analysis using the reference set studies, we compiled a list of 80 of the frequent methodological terms. This list of terms was evaluated by the Delphi panel for inclusion in the filter, resulting in a final set of 8 appropriate terms. The consecutive connection of these terms with the Boolean operator OR produced the filter. We then evaluated the filter using the relative recall method against the reference set, comparing the references included in the SRs with our new search using the filter. The overall sensitivity of the filter was calculated to be 95%, while the overall specificity was 41%. The precision of the filter varied considerably, ranging from 0.36 to 17%. The NNR (number needed to read) value varied largely from 6 to 278. The time saved by using the filter ranged from 13-70%. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a search filter for OVID-Medline with acceptable performance that could be used in systematic reviews of PF studies. Using this filter could save as much as 40% of the title and abstract screening task. The specificity of the filter could be improved by defining additional terms to be included, although it is important to evaluate any modification to guarantee the filter is still highly sensitive.