IgMA-enriched immunoglobulin in neutropenic patients with sepsis syndrome and septic shock: A randomized, controlled, multiple-center trial*

Abstract

Intravenous ivIGMA had no beneficial effects in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies and sepsis syndrome and septic shock.

An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis.

“…[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] The studies included in our review were very similar to those in the recently updated Cochrane review; 15 however, Just et al 40 was omitted and Spannbrucker et al 49 included.…”

“…Many of the studies Table 8 reports the assessment of study quality metrics. Concealment of allocation to treatments was considered adequate in 5/17 (29.4%) studies, 42,43,47,53,58 inadequate in 2/17 (11.8%) studies, 52,57 and it was not declared and was therefore unclear from the published paper for the remaining 10/17 (58.8%) studies. [44][45][46][48][49][50][51][54][55][56] Figure 5 shows a funnel plot of the standard error (SE) of the effect size (log-OR) plotted against study effect size (OR on the log-scale).…”

“…The data extracted from the 17 included studies [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] are summarised in Tables 7-13. 42,[48][49][50][52][53][54][55] out of the 17 studies (47%) explicitly reported that they were carried out in a critical-care unit setting; however, our assessment of the patient characteristics for inclusion in the other studies indicated a population with severe sepsis in each case, and so it was inferred that these studies would have been conducted in a critical-care unit setting.…”

“…Abstracts of the 48 references (available from the authors on request) were scanned for relevance, again based on the inclusion criteria, and this identified 12 references [42][43][44][45]53,56,59,[60][61][62][63][64] as potentially relevant. Full-text copy was obtained for each of the 12 references and, of these, six [42][43][44][45]53,56 were already identified from the six previous systematic reviews. Of the remaining six, 59-64 one 60 was a duplicate reference and five 59,[61][62][63][64] failed to meet the inclusion criteria for our current review ( Table 5).…”

Effect of High-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin Administration on the Levels of Interleukin-6 in Patients with Sepsis

“…But our results showed no significant clinical effect in short term prognosis. On the other hand, previous studies from overseas have used even higher doses [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] than that used in this study, and there may also be a need to conduct analyses in Japan using these higher doses on prognosis of severe sepsis and septic shock.…”