The efficacy of tocilizumab (TOC), monoclonal antibody against interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) receptor, in patients with coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) patients has led to conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy of addition of TOC to standard of care (SOC) versus SOC in patients with COVID‐19. We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO COVID, LitCOVID, and Cochrane databases. Pooled outcomes (overall mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and secondary infections) were compared using DerSimonian‐Laird/Random‐effects approach. Risk difference (RD), confidence interval (CI), and p values were generated. A total of 23 studies with 6279 patients (1897 in TOC and 4382 in SOC group, respectively) were included. The overall mortality was lower in TOC group compared to SOC group (RD: −0.06; CI: −0.12 to −0.01; p = .03). Subgroup analysis including studies with only severe cases revealed lower mortality (RD: −0.12; CI: −0.18 to −0.06; p < .01) and need for mechanical ventilation (RD: −0.11; CI: −0.19 to −0.02; p = .01) in TOC group compared to SOC group. The addition of TOC to SOC has the potential to reduce mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID‐19. Randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this.

Background: Several studies have examined the efficacy of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for gastroparesis.Aim: To evaluate the mid-term efficacy of G-POEM by meta-analysis of studies with a minimum 1 year of follow-up. Methods:We reviewed several databases from inception to 10 June 2021 to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy of G-POEM in refractory gastroparesis, and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success at 1 year, adverse events, difference in mean pre-and 1 year post-procedure Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score, and difference in mean pre-and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements. We analysed data using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity by I 2 statistic. Results:We included 10 studies comprising 482 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success at 1 year and adverse events were 61% (49%, 71%) and 8% (6%, 11%), respectively. Mean GCSI at 1 year post-procedure was significantly lower than preprocedure; mean difference (MD) (95% CI) −1.4 (−1.9, −0.9). Mean post-procedure distensibility index was significantly higher than pre-procedure in the clinical success group at 40 and 50 mL volume distension; standardised mean difference (95% CI) 0.82 (0.07, 1.64) and 0.91 (0.32, 1.49), respectively. In the clinical failure group, there was no significant difference between mean pre-and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements.Conclusions: G-POEM is associated with modest clinical success at 1 year. Additional studies with longer follow-up are required to evaluate its longer-term efficacy.

Background and study aims Esophageal defects (leaks, fistulas, and perforations) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel intervention that entails the use of sponges in the defect along with negative pressure to achieve granulation tissue formation and healing and has been gaining popularity. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of available literature to assess the safety and effectiveness of EVAC for esophageal defects. Patients and methods We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science through September 25, 2020 to include all pertinent articles highlighting the safety and effectiveness profile of EVAC for esophageal defects. Pooled rates, 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity (I2 ) were assessed for each outcome. Results A total of 18 studies with 423 patients were included (mean age 64.3 years and males 74.4 %). The technical success for EVAC was 97.1 % (CI: 95.4 %–98.7 %, I2  = 0 %). The clinical success was 89.4 % (CI: 85.6 %–93.1 %, I2  = 36.8 %). The overall all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs) noted were 7.1 % (CI: 4.7 %–9.5 %, I2  = 0 %) and 13.6 % (CI: 8.0 %–19.1 %, I2  = 68.9 %), respectively. The pooled need for adjuvant therapy was 15.7 % (CI: 9.8 %–21.6 %, I2  = 71.1 %). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis showed high rates of technical success, clinical success, and low all-cause mortality and AEs using EVAC. Although the technique is a promising alternative, the lack of comparative studies poses a challenge in making definite conclusions regarding use of EVAC compared to other endoscopic modalities, such as clips and stents.

The objective of this study is to review the experience with pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies at our cancer institute. Charts of 48 women who underwent a pelvic exenteration between January 1980 and December 1999 were reviewed, and several outcomes were analyzed. Majority of patients had received prior radiation therapy. The median survival was 35 months, and the disease-free survival was 32 months. Mortality from the procedure was 4.2%. Early and late postoperative complication rates were 27% and 75%, respectively. Recurrence rate was 60%. Eight patients received intraoperative radiation. Median survival in this group was 11.3 vs 35 months (P = 0.003). Univariate analysis failed to show an association between type of pelvic exenteration, type of fecal and urinary diversion, outcome, need for reoperation, and recurrence.Contemporary pelvic exenterations are associated with a low mortality and a potential for long-term survival in a subset of patients who historically have been given a poor prognosis. In patients with recurrent gynecological cancer confined centrally to the pelvis, pelvic exenteration still remains the choice of therapy as response to chemotherapy to a centrally recurrent tumor in radiated area continues to be poor. Intraoperative radiation in select few patients needs to be further studied.