Common Design and Data Elements Reported on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of controlled clinical trials and prospective studies, ongoing and recently completed, regarding management options for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). We present a Common Design and Data Element (CDDE) analysis of controlled and prospective IIH studies with the aim of aligning essential design and recommending data elements in future trials and enhancing data synthesis potential in IIH trials. METHODS: We used PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to screen for ongoing and published trials assessing treatment modalities in people with IIH. After our search, we used the Nested Knowledge AutoLit platform to extract pertinent information regarding each study. We examined outputs from each study and synthesized the data elements to determine the degree of homogeneity between studies. RESULTS: The most CDDE for inclusion criteria was the modified Dandy criteria for diagnosis of IIH, used in 9/14 studies (64%). The most CDDE for outcomes was change in visual function, reported in 12/14 studies (86%). Evaluation of surgical procedures (venous sinus stenting, cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement, and others) was more common, seen in 9/14 studies (64%) as compared with interventions with medical therapy 6/14 (43%). CONCLUSIONS: Although all studies have similar focus to improve patient care, there was a high degree of inconsistency among studies regarding inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and outcomes measures. Furthermore, studies used different time frames to assess outcome data elements. This heterogeneity will make it difficult to achieve a consistent standard, and thus, making secondary analyses and meta-analyses less effective in the future. Consensus on design of trials is an unmet research need for IIH.

MASTRO I: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of thrombectomy stent retriever outcomes: comparing functional, safety and recanalization outcomes between EmboTrap, Solitaire and Trevo in acute ischemic stroke.

Aim: Stent-retriever (SR) thrombectomy has demonstrated superior outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke compared with medical management alone, but differences among SRs remain unexplored. We conducted a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes between three SRs: EmboTrap®, Solitaire™, and Trevo®. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant Systematic Review among English-language studies published after 2014 in PubMed/MEDLINE that reported SRs in ≥25 patients. Functional and safety outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS 0-2), mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and embolization to new territory (ENT). Recanalization outcomes included modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) and first-pass recanalization (FPR). We used a random effects Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes; subgroup and outlier-influencer analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Fifty-one articles comprising 9,804 patients were included. EmboTrap had statistically significantly higher rates of mRS 0-2 (57.4%) compared with Trevo (50.0%, p = 0.013) and Solitaire (45.3%, p < 0.001). Compared with Solitaire (20.4%), EmboTrap (11.2%, p < 0.001) and Trevo (14.5%, p = 0.018) had statistically significantly lower mortality. Compared with Solitaire (7.7%), EmboTrap (3.9%, p = 0.028) and Trevo (4.6%, p = 0.049) had statistically significantly lower rates of sICH. There were no significant differences in ENT rates across all three devices (6.0% for EmboTrap, 5.3% for Trevo, and 7.7% for Solitaire, p = 0.518). EmboTrap had numerically higher rates of recanalization; however, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The results of our Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis suggest that EmboTrap may be associated with significantly improved functional outcomes compared with Solitaire and Trevo. EmboTrap and Trevo may be associated with significantly lower rates of sICH and mortality compared with Solitaire. No significant differences in recanalization and ENT rates were found. These conclusions are tempered by limitations of the analysis including variations in thrombectomy techniques in the field, highlighting the need for multi-arm RCT studies comparing different SR devices to confirm our findings.

Mortality of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies versus solid tumors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID-19 compared to the general population, but it remains unclear which types of cancer have the highest risk of COVID-19-related mortality. This study examines mortality rates for those with hematological malignancies (Hem) versus solid tumors (Tumor). PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant articles using Nested Knowledge software (Nested Knowledge, St Paul, MN). Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported mortality for Hem or Tumor patients with COVID-19. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English, non-clinical studies, had insufficient population/outcomes reporting, or were irrelevant. Baseline characteristics collected included age, sex, and comorbidities. Primary outcomes were all-cause and COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Effect sizes from each study were computed as logarithmically transformed odds ratios (ORs) with random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel weighting. The between-study variance component of random-effects models was computed using restricted effects maximum likelihood estimation, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around pooled effect sizes were calculated using Hartung-Knapp adjustments. In total, 12,057 patients were included in the analysis, with 2,714 (22.5%) patients in the Hem group and 9,343 (77.5%) patients in the Tumor group. The overall unadjusted odds of all-cause mortality were 1.64 times higher in the Hem group compared to the Tumor group (95% CI: 1.30-2.09). This finding was consistent with multivariable models presented in moderate- and high-quality cohort studies, suggestive of a causal effect of cancer type on in-hospital mortality. Additionally, the Hem group had increased odds of COVID-19-related mortality compared to the Tumor group (OR = 1.86 [95% CI: 1.38-2.49]). There was no significant difference in odds of IMV or ICU admission between cancer groups (OR = 1.13 [95% CI: 0.64-2.00] and OR = 1.59 [95% CI: 0.95-2.66], respectively). Cancer is a serious comorbidity associated with severe outcomes in COVID-19 patients, with especially alarming mortality rates in patients with hematological malignancies, which are typically higher compared to patients with solid tumors. A meta-analysis of individual patient data is needed to better assess the impact of specific cancer types on patient outcomes and to identify optimal treatment strategies.

Common Data Elements Analysis of Mechanical Thrombectomy Clinical Trials for Acute Ischemic Stroke with Large Core Infarct.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials addressing large core acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are ongoing across multiple international groups. Future development of clinical guidelines depends on meta-analyses of these trials calling for a degree of homogeneity of elements across the studies. This common data element study aims to provide an overview of key features of pertinent large core infarct trials. METHODS: PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were screened for published and ongoing clinical trials assessing mechanical thrombectomy in patients with AIS with large core infarct. Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform was utilized to categorize primary and secondary outcomes as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection in the trials. RESULTS: The most reported data element was ASPECTS score but with varied definitions of what constitutes large core. Non-utility-weighted modified Rankin score (mRS) was reported in 6/7 studies as the primary outcome, while the utility-weighted mRS was the outcome of interest in the TESLA trial, all of them at the 3 months mark, with only LASTE looking for mRS shift at the 6 months mark. Secondary outcomes had more variations. Mortality is reported separately only in 4/7 trials, all at the 3­month mark. Additionally, the TENSION trial reported the frequency of serious adverse events, including mortality, at the 1­week and 12-month mark. DISCUSSION: Overall, in large core trials there is a large degree of heterogeneity in the collected data elements. Differences in definition and timepoints render reaching a unified standard difficult, which hinders high quality meta-analyses and cohesive evidence-driven synthesis.

Common data elements reported on middle meningeal artery embolization in chronic subdural hematoma: an interactive systematic review of recent trials.

Cross study heterogeneity has limited the evidence based evaluation of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) as a treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Ongoing trials and prospective studies suggest that heterogeneity in upcoming publications may detract from subsequent meta-analyses and systemic reviews. This study aims to describe this data heterogeneity to promote harmonization with common data elements (CDEs) in publications. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were searched for published or ongoing prospective trials of MMAE. The Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform was utilized to classify endpoints from randomized control trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing MMAE with other treatments. The qualitative synthesis feature was used to determine cross study overlap of outcome related data elements. Eighteen studies were included: 12 RCTs, two non-randomized controlled studies, two prospective single arm trials, one combined prospective and retrospective controlled study, and one prospective cohort study. The most commonly reported data element was recurrence (15/18), but seven heterogenous (non-comparable) definitions were used for 'recurrence'. Mortality was reported in 10/18 studies, but no common timepoint was reported in more than four studies. Re-intervention and CSDH volume were reported in eight studies, CSDH width in seven, and no other outcome was common across more than five studies. There was significant heterogeneity in data element collection even among prospective registered trials of MMAE. Even among CDEs, variation in definition and timepoints prevented harmonization. A standardized approach based on CDEs may be necessary to facilitate future meta-analyses and evidence driven evaluation of MMAE treatment of CSDH.

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). CONCLUSION: This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.