Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection/In vitro fertilization (IVF/ICSI) plus immunosuppressants such as prednisolone, prednisone, or cyclosporine A versus the use of IVF/ICSI alone. Data source: Databases were systematically searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in September 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with the outcomes of interest were included. Data collect: We computed odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.The main outcomes were live birth, miscarriage, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and biochemical pregnancy. Data synthesis: Seven studies with 2,829 patients were included. Immunosuppressive treatments were used in 1,312 (46.37%). Cyclosporine A improved implantation rate (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.01-2.18) and clinical pregnancy (1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.14). Compared to non-immunosuppressive treatment, prednisolone and prednisone did not improve live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) and miscarriage (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.09). Prednisolone showed no significant effect in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, clinical pregnancy (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.76-2.36), or implantation rate (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.76-2.42). Conclusion: Cyclosporine A may promote implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. However, given the limited sample size, it is important to approach these findings with caution. Our results indicate that prednisolone and prednisone do not have any beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI patients with repeated implantation failure. PROSPERO: CRD42023449655.

Povidone Iodine vs Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Preoperative Skin Antisepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a challenge in healthcare, contributing to prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, and adverse patient outcomes, including mortality. Effective preoperative skin disinfection interventions, such as povidone-iodine (PVI) and chlorhexidine (CHG), are widely used but their efficacy remains debated. To address this gap, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of PVI and CHG. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2024 to identify studies comparing PVI versus CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Data were analysed using R software (version 4.4.0), and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. FINDINGS: Sixteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 13,721 patients, among whom 6,836 (49.8%) received PVI. Compared to CHG, PVI was associated with a non-significant reduction in deep SSI (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 - 1.50; p = 0.994), but an increased risk of overall SSI (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 - 1.48; p = 0.007) and superficial SSI (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.25 - 2.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PVI as preoperative skin antisepsis demonstrated a non-significant reduction in deep SSI compared to CHG but was associated with an increased risk of overall and superficial SSI. Despite these findings, PVI remains an effective option, especially in resource-limited settings. Further research is needed to optimise its use and improve infection prevention strategies in clinical practice.

Safety and efficacy of biologic drugs in children or adolescents with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Children and adolescents suffering from moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) face a significant disease burden that greatly impacts their quality of life. Treatment options for AD are currently limited. To assess the safety and efficacy of biologic drugs, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, or tralokinumab, in improving outcomes in patients with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dupilumab, lebrikizumab or tralokinumab to placebo in patients with AD. We computed odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), random effects model was used and a p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. We analysed data into Review Manager 5.4. A total of five RCTs and 973 patients were included, of whom 592 were prescribed a biologic drug. Compared with placebo, patients receiving a biologic drug had a greater improvement, achieved an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (OR 5.05; 95% CI 3.08-8.29), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75 (OR 6.87; 95% CI 4.71-10.02), EASI 50 (OR 8.89; 95% CI 6.18-12.78) and EASI 90 (8.30; 95% CI 4.81-14.31). The proportion of patients with 3 points or more (OR 6.56; 95% CI 4.34-9.90) or 4 points or more (OR 8.09; 95% CI 5.19-12.59) improvement from baseline in peak pruritus NRS was significantly higher with biologic drugs than placebo. There were no significant differences between groups regarding adverse events (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.58-1.07), and conjunctivitis (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.00-4.33). In this meta-analysis, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab have shown significant improvements in signs, symptoms and quality of life in children or adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Larger studies may be needed to continue evaluating the safety and efficacy of these biologic drugs in this patient population.

Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Objective To compare outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection/In vitro fertilization (IVF/ICSI) plus immunosuppressants such as prednisolone, prednisone, or cyclosporine A versus the use of IVF/ICSI alone. Data source Databases were systematically searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in September 2023. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with the outcomes of interest were included. Data collect We computed odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.The main outcomes were live birth, miscarriage, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and biochemical pregnancy. Data synthesis Seven studies with 2,829 patients were included. Immunosuppressive treatments were used in 1,312 (46.37%). Cyclosporine A improved implantation rate (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.01-2.18) and clinical pregnancy (1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.14). Compared to non-immunosuppressive treatment, prednisolone and prednisone did not improve live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) and miscarriage (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.09). Prednisolone showed no significant effect in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, clinical pregnancy (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.76-2.36), or implantation rate (OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.76-2.42). Conclusion Cyclosporine A may promote implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. However, given the limited sample size, it is important to approach these findings with caution. Our results indicate that prednisolone and prednisone do not have any beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI patients with repeated implantation failure. PROSPERO CRD42023449655