Abstract

BACKGROUND Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has a frequent adverse effect after the administration of nitrogenous bisphosphonates, as non-nitrogenous bisphosphonates are metabolized more rapidly and would produce this effect to a lesser extent. The objective of this study is to analyze the results obtained in the literature with the use of L-PRF in the treatment of ONJ through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane, Web of Science and Grey Literature Database was screened from which 10 were selected. RESULTS In the meta-analysis with full resolution, combining the use of L-PRF in the treatment of ONJ, a weighted proportion (PP) of 94.3% of complete resolution is obtained (95% CI: 91.2-97.4, p<0.001), with a low degree of heterogeneity, statistically significant (I2 = 29.02%; p<0.001). When analyzing the non-resolution data, a weighted proportion (PP) of 7.7% (95% CI: 3.6-11.9; p<0.001) was obtained with moderate heterogeneity (I2: 41.87%; p=0.112). In the meta-regression, no significant correlation was found between complete resolution and year of publication (intercept = 2.88, p=0.829). In consistency analysis no major changes in PP are identified when any of the studies are eliminated, demonstrating a high reliability in the combined results. CONCLUSION L-PRF alone or in combination with other therapies in treatment of ONJ achieved high percentages of complete lesion resolution (94.3%). In studies where L-PRF is combined with other therapies, and where the effectiveness of the other therapy alone is analyzed, L-PRF has been shown higher percentages of resolution.

Abstract

PURPOSE To evaluate the role of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for adhesive capsulitis (AC) as compared to other injectables. METHODS A literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase online databases identifying articles evaluating injection therapy for the treatment of AC. Inclusion criteria included prospective studies comparing PRP against alternative injectables with a minimum 15 patients in each treatment arm and a minimum 12-week follow-up. Pain scores, range of motion, and function scores were the primary outcomes assessed. RESULTS Five articles met inclusion criteria comparing PRP to corticosteroid or saline injections. There were 157 patients treated with PRP with follow-up duration ranging from three to six months. All five studies demonstrated statistically significant improvement in pain scores, motion, and function scores for patients receiving PRP, corticosteroid, and saline injections. However, PRP was consistently superior on intergroup analyses in all but one study. In four studies, pain and function scores favored PRP over control at final follow-up (range in mean difference for VAS pain score: -2.2 - 0.69, n=5 and SPADI score: -50.5 - -4.0, n=3) while three studies found greater improvement in shoulder motion after PRP (range in mean difference for forward flexion: 0.7 - 34.3 degrees and external rotation -2.3 - 20.4 degrees, n=4). One study found no significant difference between PRP and corticosteroid injections, but noted results were comparable. CONCLUSIONS According to a limited number of prospective studies, PRP injections for AC is at least equivalent to corticosteroid or saline injections and often leads to improved pain, motion, and functional outcomes at 3-6-month follow-up. Given the small number of studies, with design heterogeneity, there is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend PRP for AC. However, the results are promising and do support considering PRP as an adjunct treatment option for AC, especially for patients refractory and/or averse to corticosteroids or alternative treatment modalities.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Industry funding and corporate sponsorship have played a significant role in the advancement of orthopaedic research and technology. However, this relationship raises concerns for how industry association may bias research findings and influence clinical practice. PURPOSE To determine whether industry affiliation plays a role in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platelet-rich plasma (PRP). STUDY DESIGN Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS A search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs published between 2011 and the present comparing PRP versus hyaluronic acid, corticosteroid, or placebo for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis was performed. To determine industry affiliation, the conflict of interest, funding, and disclosure sections of publications were assessed, and all authors were assessed through the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. Studies were classified as industry affiliated (IA) or non-industry affiliated (NIA). The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, analogous, or unfavorable according to predefined criteria. RESULTS A total of 37 studies (6 IA and 31 NIA) were available for analysis. Overall, 19 studies (51.4%) reported PRP as favorable compared with other treatment options, while 18 studies (48.6%) showed no significant differences between PRP and other treatment methods. There was no significant difference in qualitative conclusions between the IA and NIA groups, with the IA group having 3 favorable studies and 3 analogous studies and the NIA group having 16 favorable studies and 15 analogous studies (P = .8881). When comparing IA versus NIA studies using 6- and 12-month Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, there were no significant differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION The results of this study demonstrated that qualitative conclusions and outcome scores were found to not be associated with industry affiliation. Although the results of this study suggest that there is no influence of industry involvement on RCTs examining PRP, it is still necessary to carefully evaluate pertinent commercial affiliations when reviewing recommendations from studies before adopting new treatment approaches, such as the use of PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

Abstract

PURPOSE Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) sub-luxation can have a significant psycho-social impact on a patients' well-being. Several treatment modalities have been described in the literature for the same. The present study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy of heavy bupivacaine-dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) for the peri-articular tissues, superior joint space and the retro-discal area in the patients with symptomatic chronic sub-luxation. MATERIALS AND METHODS A preliminary clinical study was conducted among 60 patients diagnosed with chronic painful sub-luxation of the TMJ. Patients were divided into control group (CG), n = 30, where autologous blood was injected in the superior joint space, peri-capsular tissues and retro-discal area bilaterally as per the predetermined protocol; and the study group (SG), n = 30 patients were administered heavy bupivacaine-dextrose injection bilaterally in the peri-articular tissues, superior joint space and retro-discal area. The efficacy of the treatment was evaluated by assessing pain, maximum inter-incisal opening (MIO), changes in computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging study, number and need for subsequent injections in both the groups. RESULT Among the 60 patients, majority of the patients exhibited successful outcome after both the interventions, ABI and HDP. There was statistically significant reduction in recorded pain score with reduced MIO post-treatment. No morphological changes were noted in the condyle in both the groups. No complications were recorded among the study population. CONCLUSION HDP is a safe and simple modality for treating symptomatic sub-luxation with predictable clinical outcome. Heavy bupivacaine-dextrose can be considered as a prolotherapeutic agent for symptomatic chronic temporomandibular joint sub-luxation with the pharmacological benefit of local anaesthesia and proliferent delivery through the same injection.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Over the past few years, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy about its benefits for patients with Achilles tendinopathy. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate whether platelet-rich plasma injections can improve outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical CD-ROM, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal databases to identify randomised controlled clinical trials that compared the efficacy of PRP injection in patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) versus placebo, published between 1 January 1966 and 1 December 2022. Review Manager 5.4.1 software was used for the statistical analysis, and the Jadad score was used to assess the included literature. Only 8 of the 288 articles found met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Our work suggests that: The PRP treatment group had a slightly higher VISA-A score than the placebo group at 6 weeks [MD = 1.92, 95% CI (-0.54, 4.38), I(2) = 34%], at 12 weeks [MD = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.65 3.05), I(2) = 60%], and 24 weeks [MD = 2.75, 95% CI (-2.76, 8.26), I(2) = 87%]). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The Achilles tendon thickness was higher at 12 weeks of treatment in the PRP treatment group compared to the control group [MD = 0.34, 95% CI (-0.04, 0.71), p = 0.08], but the difference was not statistically significant. The VAS-improvement results showed no significant difference at 6 and 24 weeks between the two groups, respectively (MD = 6.75, 95% CI = (-6.12, 19.62), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.30), and (MD = 10.46, 95% CI = (-2.44 to 23.37), I(2) = 69%, p = 0.11). However, at 12 weeks of treatment, the PRP injection group showed a substantial VAS improvement compared to the control group (MD = 11.30, 95% CI = (7.33 to 15.27), I(2) = 0%, p < 0.00001). The difference was statistically significant. The return to exercise rate results showed a higher return to exercise rate in the PRP treatment group than the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.87, 1.42), p = 0.40]; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION There is no proof that PRP injections can enhance patient functional and clinical outcomes for Achilles tendinopathy. Augmenting the frequency of PRP injections may boost the outcomes, and additionally, more rigorous designs and standardised clinical randomised controlled trials are needed to produce more reliable and accurate results.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for COVID-19 disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, MedRxiv, World Health Organization, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS Five included studies from four countries enrolled and transfused 2,620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1,795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14,580 in diverse assays. 160 (12.2%) of 1315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1305 COVID-19 convalescent plasma treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95%CI: 1.3%-6.0%; p=.001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95%CI: 4.0%-11.1%; p=.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Covid Convalescent Plasma (CCP) failed to demonstrate its efficacy in severe and life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the role of CCP in hospitalized moderate cases is unclear. This study aims to examine the efficacy of administering CCP to hospitalized moderate coronavirus disease 2019 patients. METHODOLOGY An open-label randomized controlled clinical trial design was used from November 2020 - August 2021 at two referral hospitals in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the primary outcome was mortality at 14 days. The secondary outcomes were mortality at 28 days, the time-to-discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and the time-to-hospital discharge. RESULTS This study recruited 44 subjects, and the intervention arm consisted of 21 respondents who received CCP. The control arm consisted of 23 subjects who received standard-of-care treatment. All subjects survived during the fourteen-day follow-up period, and the 28-day mortality rate in the intervention group was lower than the control (4.8% vs 13.0%; p = 0.16, HR = 4.39 (95% CI = 0.45-42.71). There was no statistically significant difference in the time-to-discontinuation of supplemental oxygen and time-to-hospital discharge. During the total follow-up period (41 days), the mortality rate in the intervention group was also lower than the control (4.8% vs 17.4%, p = 0.13, HR = 5.47, 95% CI = 0.60-49.55). CONCLUSIONS This study concluded that in hospitalized moderate COVID-19 patients, CCP did not reduce 14-day mortality compared to the control. Mortality during 28 days and total length of stay (41 days) were lower in the CCP group compared to the control, although they did not reach statistical significance.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND While early evidence concluded a lack of clinical benefit of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in COVID-19 management, recent trials demonstrate the therapeutic potential of CPT in ambulatory care. CPT may also potentiate thromboembolic events given the presence of coagulation factors and the prothrombotic state of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE The present study aims to assess and compare the clinical efficacy and the risk of venous/arterial thromboembolism (VTE, ATE) of CPT in ambulatory vs hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from December 2019 to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of CPT against placebo or standard of care in adult COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was non-mortality disease progression. Secondary outcomes include VTE, ATE, 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, length of hospitalization (LOH), sepsis/fever, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS Twenty randomized controlled trials, with 21340 patients, were included. CPT significantly reduced non-mortality disease progression in ambulatory patients (OR 0.72, 0.56-0.92, P = 0.009) but not in hospitalized patients (1.03, 0.94-1.12, P = 0.58). The risk of VTE and ATE did not differ between the CPT and the control group (1.15, 0.81 to 1.64, P = 0.44; 1.01, 0.37 to 2.79, P = 0.98). No conclusive differences between CPT and control were noted in 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, LOH, risk of sepsis/fever, and MACE. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, treatment of COVID-19 with CPT prevents the progression of COVID-19 in the ambulatory care. It is not associated with an increased risk of VTE, ATE, or other adverse events.

Abstract

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown if CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted sub-distribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. Additionally, we assessed prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS Among 1,070 outpatients followed after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (p = 0.78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 were not statistically different from those in controls after adjusting for baseline characteristics (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio: 0.99; p = 0.62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache, found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared to control. Overall, there were no differences in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14 by treatment.