1.
Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19 in Ambulatory vs Hospitalized Patients: Efficacy and Risk of Thromboembolism
Li PY, Yu P, Li A, Khalid F, Laureano ML, Crowther MA
Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis. 2023;:100068
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.
2.
Additive effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony defects: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis
Li A, Yang H, Zhang J, Chen S, Wang H, Gao Y
Medicine. 2019;98(11):e14759
Abstract
BACKGROUND This meta-analysis was performed to determine the additive effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony defects in chronic periodontitis patients. METHODS Pertinent studies were identified by a search in Medline, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The trials searched were evaluated for eligibility. Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analyses. RESULTS Twelve eligible clinical trials were included. Pooled data found that adjunctive platelet-rich fibrin exactly yielded a significantly superior probing depth reduction compared with open flap debridement alone (weighted mean difference, 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.08; P < .00001). The clinical attachment level (CAL) gain after treatment for 9 months was higher in patients treated with platelet-rich fibrin plus open flap debridement group than in open flap debridement-treated patients (weighted mean difference, 1.29; 95% confidence interval 0.96- 1.61; P < .00001). Similarly, the meta-analysis demonstrated that platelet-rich fibrin was superior to single open flap debridement with respect to gingival marginal level change (weighted mean difference, 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.58; P < .00001). Regarding the hard tissue radiographic parameters, including defect depth reduction and percentage of fill defects in bone, adjunctive platelet-rich fibrin yielded significantly superior results compared with open flap debridement alone. CONCLUSION Adjunctive use of platelet-rich fibrin with open flap debridement significantly improves fill defects when compared to open flap debridement alone. However, additional powered studies with much larger sample sizes are needed to obtain a more concrete conclusion.
3.
Platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroids for elbow epicondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Li A, Wang H, Yu Z, Zhang G, Feng S, Liu L, Gao Y
Medicine. 2019;98(51):e18358
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) vs corticosteroids for treatment of patients with lateral elbow epicondylitis. METHODS A literature search was performed in EMBASE, Medline, the Cochrane Library and PubMed. Randomized controlled studies comparing PRP with corticosteroids for the treatment of epicondylitis were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included trials. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analyses. The overall effect size of each anesthetic was calculated as the weighted average of the inverse variance of the study-specific estimates. RESULTS Seven randomized controlled trials were included in this review. The data from 2 studies were unavailable for meta-analysis, and the systematic review criteria were just achieved. Local corticosteroid injection yielded a significantly superior Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 4 weeks (WMD, 11.90; 95% CI: 7.72 to 16.08; P < .00001; heterogeneity, chi = 0, I = 0%, P = 1.00) and 8 weeks (WMD, 6.29; 95% CI: 2.98 to 9.60; P = .0002, chi = 0, I = 0%, P = 1.00). Otherwise, it was noteworthy that a significantly lower VAS score (WMD, -2.61; 95% CI: -5.18 to -0.04; P = .05; heterogeneity, chi = 29.85, I = 97%, P < .00001) and DASH score (WMD, -7.73; 95% CI: -9.99 to -5.46; P < .00001, chi = 0.20, I = 0%, P = .66) existed in the PRP regimen than in the steroid regimen at the 24-week follow-up. More effective treatments were achieved in the PRP-treated patients than in the patients treated with corticosteroids (WMD, 3.33; 95% CI: 1.81 to 6.14; P = .000; heterogeneity, chi = 0.43, I = 0%, P = .51). CONCLUSIONS Local corticosteroid injections demonstrated favorable outcomes compared with those of local PRP treatments for lateral elbow epicondylitis during the short-term follow-up period (4 weeks and 8 weeks post-treatment). Otherwise, at the long-term follow-up (24 weeks post-treatment), PRP injections had improved pain and function more effectively than corticosteroid injections.