Background. Administration of convalescent plasma, serum, or hyperimmune immunoglobulin may be of clinical benefit for treatment of severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. We conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis to assess the overall evidence.Methods. Healthcare databases and sources of grey literature were searched in July 2013. All records were screened against the protocol eligibility criteria, using a 3-stage process. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken.Results. We identified 32 studies of SARS coronavirus infection and severe influenza. Narrative analyses revealed consistent evidence for a reduction in mortality, especially when convalescent plasma is administered early after symptom onset. Exploratory post hoc meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment, compared with placebo or no therapy (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, .14–.45; I2 = 0%). Studies were commonly of low or very low quality, lacked control groups, and at moderate or high risk of bias. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified.Conclusions. Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality and appears safe. This therapy should be studied within the context of a well-designed clinical trial or other formal evaluation, including for treatment of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus CoV infection.

BackgroundHepatitis C viral (HCV) infection is a significant public health problem. In the UK, an estimated 200,000 individuals have active HCV infection, most of whom are injecting drug users (IDUs). Many IDUs spend time within the prison system therefore screening for HCV infection in this setting is important. However, uptake of testing within prisons is very low.MethodsQualitative interview study. 30 interviews with 25 male and 5 female prisoners with a history of injecting drug use.ResultsPersonal and institutional barriers to uptake of testing for HCV were identified. Personal barriers included: prisoners' fears and lack of knowledge about HCV, low motivation for testing, lack of awareness about the testing procedure, and concerns about confidentiality and stigma. Institutional barriers included: the prisons' applications procedure for testing, inadequate pre- and post-test discussion, lack of pro-active approaches to offering testing, and lack of continuity of care on discharge and transfer.ConclusionThis study highlights potential areas of development in the management of HCV in prisons. Further research is needed to evaluate care pathways for HCV in the prison setting and to develop and assess interventions to improve the uptake of testing for HCV by prisoners.

We report the long-term survival of a prospective randomised consecutive series of 501 primary knee replacements using the press-fit condylar posterior cruciate ligament-retaining prosthesis. Patients received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. Altogether, 44 of 501 knees (8.8%) underwent revision surgery (24 cemented vs 20 cementless). For cemented knees the 15-year survival rate was 80.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71.5 to 87.4) and for cementless knees it was 75.3% (95% CI 63.5 to 84.3). There was no significant difference between the two groups (cemented vs cementless; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.52, p = 0.55). When comparing the covariates there was no significant difference in the rates of survival between the side of operation (HR 0.58, p = 0.07), age (HR 0.97, p = 0.10) and diagnosis (HR 1.25 p = 0.72). However, there was a significant gender difference, with males having a higher failure rate with cemented fixation (HR 2.48, p = 0.004). Females had a similar failure rate in both groups. This single-surgeon series, with no loss to follow-up, provides reliable data of the revision rates of one of the most commonly-used total knee replacements. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement remained good at 15 years, irrespective of the method of fixation.

We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trial comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation.The patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (2.7 to 13.0) to establish the rate of survival of the implant. The ten-year survival was compared using life-table and Cox's proportional hazard analysis.No patient was lost to follow-up. The survival at ten years was 95.3% (95% CI 90.3 to 97.8) and 95.6% (95% CI 89.5 to 98.2) in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for failure in cemented compared with cementless prostheses was 0.97 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.6). A comparison of the clinical outcome at ten years in 80 knees showed no difference between the two groups.The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement at ten years is good irrespective of the method of fixation and brings into question the use of more expensive cementless implants. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2002;84-B:658-66. Received 27 July 2001; Accepted 24 September 2001 As the demand for knee replacement surgery increases resources need to be allocated to implants with the best long-term clinical outcome and survival rates.Liow and Murray 1 reported that 54% of knee prostheses, which were available in the UK did not have functional or survival results published in peer-reviewed journals. In their report, there were only five implants (13%) with published survival analyses of ten years or more and only five (13%) for which a functional outcome at more than five years was available. This paucity of data concerning the long-term outcome after total knee replacement (TKR) is alarming considering the rapid rise in the number of different designs of prostheses which are available. There is considerable debate regarding the possible benefits of using cementless fixation in joint replacement surgery. These include preservation of bone stock, ease of revision, the avoidance of complications of cementation and lastly, but most importantly, improved long-term survival of the implant. Although it is now clear that aseptic loosening is mainly related to wear debris rather than to cemented fixation, the question remains as to whether cementless implants have an improved long-term survival. This can only be answered by a randomised trial comparing the two methods of fixation. For TKR no such reports have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Our aim therefore was to compare the long-term survival, in a prospective randomised trial, of cemented with cementless fixation, using the press-fit condylar TKR system.