Saadi, Samer

Abstract MSC (a.k.a. mesenchymal stem cell or medicinal signaling cell) cell therapies show promise in decreasing mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and suggest benefits in treatment of COVID-19-related ARDS. We performed a meta-analysis of published trials assessing the efficacy and adverse events (AE) rates of MSC cell therapy in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19. Systematic searches were performed in multiple databases through November 3, 2021. Reports in all languages, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs), non-randomized interventional trials, and uncontrolled trials, were included. Random effects model was used to pool outcomes from RCTs and non-randomized interventional trials. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), AEs, pulmonary function, laboratory, and imaging findings. A total of 736 patients were identified from 34 studies, which included 5 RCTs (n = 235), 7 non-randomized interventional trials (n = 370), and 22 uncontrolled comparative trials (n = 131). Patients aged on average 59.4 years and 32.2% were women. When compared with the control group, MSC cell therapy was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, I 2 = 0.0%), reduction in SAEs (IRR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.14-0.90, I 2 = 0.0%) and no significant difference in AE rate. A sub-group with pulmonary function studies suggested improvement in patients receiving MSC. These findings support the potential for MSC cell therapy to decrease all-cause mortality, reduce SAEs, and improve pulmonary function compared with conventional care. Large-scale double-blinded, well-powered RCTs should be conducted to further explore these results.

BACKGROUND As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1–2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%–80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the procedural safety and outcomes of high power (HP) versus conventional power (CP) radiofrequency (RF) ablation during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods: A systematic search was used via MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases between 01/1998 and 05/2020 for studies comparing the safety and efficacy between HP and CP during RF ablation for PVI using contact-force catheters (ThermocoolSmartTouch or TactiCath). The search terms used were “AF” AND “catheter ablation” OR “radiofrequency ablation”. Results: From eight comparative observational studies, we developed a cohort of 992 patients (478 in the HP and 514 in the CP group). The median maximum energy output used in the HP group was 50W vs 35W in the CP group. There was a statistically significant difference noted in acute pulmonary vein reconnection (APVR) in the HP group compared to the CP groups at16% vs 32.6%, respectively (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33 - 0.86, P = 0.01). Freedom from arrhythmia at 12 months follow-up was also significant and found to be 87.8% of cases in the HP group versus75.2% of cases in the CP group (RR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.32 - 0.65, P <0.01). The mean RF ablation time was 20.1 minutes in the HP group vs 39.6 minutes in the CP group (P <0.01). The mean total procedural time was 103.5 minutes in the HP group compared to 135 minutes in the CP group (P <0.01). Two patients in the CP group experienced severe adverse events (1 cardiac tamponade and 1 myocardial infarction). No serious AEs were found in the HP group. Non-serious AEs (groin complications, pericardial effusion, and phrenic nerve injury) were reported in 0.35% and 0.51% of cases in the HP and CP group, respectively. Conclusion: This study suggests that HP PVI ablation can be associated with better ablation outcomes by reducing the rate of acute and late PV reconnection and atrial arrhythmia recurrence, with similar safety profiles, and shorter procedural times. These findings merit evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Despite the advances in screening protocols and treatment options, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still considered to be the most lethal malignancy in patients with liver cirrhosis. Moreover, the survival outcomes after failure of first-line therapy for unresectable HCC is still poor with limited therapeutic options. One of these options is immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of this study is to comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with HCC.