7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CytoSorb in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A rapid evidence review and meta-analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          After its approval by the European Union in 2011, CytoSorb therapy has been applied to control cytokine storm and lower the increased levels of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators in blood. However, the efficiency of this CytoSorb treatment in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) still remains unclear. To elucidate the Cytosorb efficiency, we conducted a systematic review and single-arm proportion meta-analysis to combine all evidence available in the published literature to date, so that this comprehensive knowledge can guide clinical decision-making and future research.

          Methods

          The literature published within the period 1 December 2019 to 31 December 2021 and stored in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for all relevant studies including the cases where COVID-19 patients were treated with CytoSorb. We performed random-effects meta-analyses by R software (3.6.1) and used the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist to assess the risk of bias. Both categorical and continuous variables were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as pooled proportions for categorical variables and pooled means for continuous outcomes.

          Results

          We included 14 studies with 241 COVID-19 patients treated with CytoSorb hemadsorption. Our findings reveal that for COVID-19 patients receiving CytoSorb treatment, the combined in-hospital mortality was 42.1% (95% CI 29.5–54.6%, I 2 = 74%). The pooled incidence of adjunctive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was 73.2%. Both the C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels decreased after CytoSorb treatment. The pooled mean of the CRP level decreased from 147.55 (95% CI 91.14–203.96) to 92.36 mg/L (95% CI 46.74–137.98), while that of IL-6 decreased from 339.49 (95% CI 164.35–514.63) to 168.83 pg/mL (95% CI 82.22–255.45).

          Conclusions

          The majority of the COVID-19 patients treated with CytoSorb received ECMO support. In-hospital mortality was 42.1% for the COVID-19 patients who had CytoSorb treatment. Both CRP and IL-6 levels decreased after Cytosorb treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

          Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. Results A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). Conclusions In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            COVID-19: consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression

            As of March 12, 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been confirmed in 125 048 people worldwide, carrying a mortality of approximately 3·7%, 1 compared with a mortality rate of less than 1% from influenza. There is an urgent need for effective treatment. Current focus has been on the development of novel therapeutics, including antivirals and vaccines. Accumulating evidence suggests that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might have a cytokine storm syndrome. We recommend identification and treatment of hyperinflammation using existing, approved therapies with proven safety profiles to address the immediate need to reduce the rising mortality. Current management of COVID-19 is supportive, and respiratory failure from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the leading cause of mortality. 2 Secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) is an under-recognised, hyperinflammatory syndrome characterised by a fulminant and fatal hypercytokinaemia with multiorgan failure. In adults, sHLH is most commonly triggered by viral infections 3 and occurs in 3·7–4·3% of sepsis cases. 4 Cardinal features of sHLH include unremitting fever, cytopenias, and hyperferritinaemia; pulmonary involvement (including ARDS) occurs in approximately 50% of patients. 5 A cytokine profile resembling sHLH is associated with COVID-19 disease severity, characterised by increased interleukin (IL)-2, IL-7, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, interferon-γ inducible protein 10, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, macrophage inflammatory protein 1-α, and tumour necrosis factor-α. 6 Predictors of fatality from a recent retrospective, multicentre study of 150 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, China, included elevated ferritin (mean 1297·6 ng/ml in non-survivors vs 614·0 ng/ml in survivors; p 39·4°C 49 Organomegaly None 0 Hepatomegaly or splenomegaly 23 Hepatomegaly and splenomegaly 38 Number of cytopenias * One lineage 0 Two lineages 24 Three lineages 34 Triglycerides (mmol/L) 4·0 mmol/L 64 Fibrinogen (g/L) >2·5 g/L 0 ≤2·5 g/L 30 Ferritin ng/ml 6000 ng/ml 50 Serum aspartate aminotransferase <30 IU/L 0 ≥30 IU/L 19 Haemophagocytosis on bone marrow aspirate No 0 Yes 35 Known immunosuppression † No 0 Yes 18 The Hscore 11 generates a probability for the presence of secondary HLH. HScores greater than 169 are 93% sensitive and 86% specific for HLH. Note that bone marrow haemophagocytosis is not mandatory for a diagnosis of HLH. HScores can be calculated using an online HScore calculator. 11 HLH=haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. * Defined as either haemoglobin concentration of 9·2 g/dL or less (≤5·71 mmol/L), a white blood cell count of 5000 white blood cells per mm3 or less, or platelet count of 110 000 platelets per mm3 or less, or all of these criteria combined. † HIV positive or receiving longterm immunosuppressive therapy (ie, glucocorticoids, cyclosporine, azathioprine).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Immunol
                Front Immunol
                Front. Immunol.
                Frontiers in Immunology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-3224
                31 January 2023
                2023
                31 January 2023
                : 14
                : 1067214
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou University , Lanzhou, China
                [2] 2 Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou University , Lanzhou, China
                [3] 3 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou University , Lanzhou, China
                [4] 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou University , Lanzhou, China
                [5] 5 Department of Extracorporeal Circulation, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou University , Lanzhou, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Congshan Jiang, Xi’an Children’s Hospital, China

                Reviewed by: JW Hayanga, West Virginia University, United States; Samuele Ceruti, Clinica Luganese Moncucco, Switzerland

                *Correspondence: Zhenzhen Li, 569281470@ 123456qq.com ; Yongnan Li, lyngyq2006@ 123456foxmail.com

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                This article was submitted to Cytokines and Soluble Mediators in Immunity, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology

                Article
                10.3389/fimmu.2023.1067214
                9927009
                36798138
                e45eb6ce-110a-4564-bbbe-9f29a9b139cc
                Copyright © 2023 Wei, Zhang, Zhai, Li, Li, Yang, Zhang, Li and Li

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 11 October 2022
                : 17 January 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 44, Pages: 8, Words: 3511
                Funding
                The study was funded by the Natural Sciences Foundation of Gansu (No. 20JR10RA760); the Talent Introduction Plan of the Lanzhou University Second Hospital (No. YJRCKYQDJ-2021-02); the Scientific Research Projects of Colleges in Gansu Province (No. 2020B-028, No. 2020B-037); the Cuiying Scientific and Technological Innovation Program of Lanzhou University Second Hospital (No. CY2019-QN01, CY2021-QN-B11, CY2021-QN-B04).
                Categories
                Immunology
                Systematic Review

                Immunology
                cytosorb,coronavirus disease 2019,cytokines,cytokine hemadsorption,meta-analysis
                Immunology
                cytosorb, coronavirus disease 2019, cytokines, cytokine hemadsorption, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article