-
1.
An umbrella review of the use of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia
Li C, Pan L, Yang L, Kong J, Zhang L
Journal of cosmetic dermatology. 2023
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia, as well as establish an effective treatment protocol and optimal PRP preparation procedure. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception to October 29, 2021, using PROSPERO's International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration ID: CRD42022295921). RESULTS The original literature search revealed 215 reviews; after duplication removal, 89 papers were eliminated, 95 were eliminated after reading the titles and abstracts, and eventually, 28 articles were included after reading the complete text. CONCLUSIONS PRP treatment for androgenetic alopecia is effective, and we recommend the following: (1) a PRP volume of at least 0.05 ml/cm(2) , preferably 0.1 ml/cm(2) ; (2) at least three consecutive treatments at an interval of 1 month; (3) intensive therapy is beneficial and can be provided from 3 to 6 months after continuous treatment; (4) objective indicators such as hair diameter, hair count; (5) long-term follow-up.
-
2.
Comparison of clinical effect of octreotide and pituitrin in treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhosis
Zhu Y, Ren Y, Li C, Si Z, Chi N
Indian journal of pharmacology. 2023;55(1):21-26
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to compare and observe the therapeutic effect of octreotide and pituitrin in upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage caused by cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this prospective, randomized, open, single-blind, controlled, and single-center study, patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage induced by cirrhosis were divided into control group (treated with pituitrin) and experimental group (treated with octreotide). The effective time, hemostasis time, and average bleeding volume of the two groups were observed and recorded, and the incidence of adverse reactions, rebleeding rate, and total effective rate of the two groups were compared. RESULTS One hundred and thirty-two patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage caused by cirrhosis were included from March 2017 to September 2018. By a single-blind method, the patients were randomly divided into control group (n = 66) and experimental group (n = 66). Compared with the control group, the effective time and hemostasis time of the drug were significantly shorter in the experimental group, whereas the average bleeding volume of patients was lower (average P < 0.05). Compare with the control group, the total effective rate was higher in the experimental group, whereas the incidence of adverse reactions was lower (average P < 0.05). During 1-year follow-up, early and late rebleeding rates and hemorrhage-related mortality between the two groups have no difference (average P > 0.05). CONCLUSION In the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, octreotide is superior to pituitrin, with advantages of quick onset, short hemostasis time, and less adverse reactions, which is helpful to control the rebleeding rate and bleeding-related mortality.
-
3.
Effects of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma on Healing of Peptic Ulcers: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Xu T, Tian Y, Wang Y, Yi Z, Li C, Wang S, Fan Y, Yao C, Peng G, Lu H
Gastroenterology research and practice. 2022;2022:7944849
Abstract
PURPOSE Peptic ulcer is a multifactorial and complex disease and affects a wide range of people worldwide. We provided a novel therapeutic approach for peptic ulcer and observed its effect. METHODS Peptic ulcer patients were enrolled from 2016 to 2017 in Chongqing and randomly assigned to two groups: a control group that used only rabeprazole and a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) group that received a combination therapy of autologous PRP (aPRP) and rabeprazole. The therapeutic effect was assessed via the ulcer size and symptom score. RESULTS A total of 27 patients were included (12 patients in the control group and 15 patients in the PRP group) in this study. Our results showed that all participants have healed in 30 days, and there was no significant difference in healing time between the PRP group and the control group in different independent variables. However, regression analysis revealed that the healing time was 6.99 days shorter in the PRP group than that in the control group, and patients with higher symptom scores in the initial examination need more time to heal during treatment. Endoscopic results showed that the repaired ulcer in the PRP group was more similar to the normal gastric mucosa tissue than that the control group. CONCLUSION This study showed an encouraging preliminary result that aPRP has a positive result in patients with peptic ulcer and seems to be a better choice for refractory peptic ulcer treatment. Although further follow-up studies are needed to determine the duration of efficacy of aPRP, the approach will be helpful in improving the clinical treatment of peptic ulcer.
-
4.
Efficacy and Safety of Blood Derivative Therapy for Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Fei Z, Chen Z, Du X, Cao H, Li C
Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie. 2022;382:1-13
Abstract
BACKGROUND The outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in more than 200 million infections and 4 million deaths. The blood derivative therapy represented by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and convalescent plasma (CP) therapy may be the promising therapeutics for COVID-19. METHODS A systematic article search was performed for eligible studies published up to August 3, 2021, through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 5 IVIG therapy and 13 CP therapy randomized controlled trials were included with a sample size of 13,696 subjects diagnosed with COVID-19. IVIG could reduce the mortality compared with the control group (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.93, p = 0.02). The use of CP did not effectively reduce the mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p = 0.38), the length of hospital stay (MD -0.47, 95% CI: -4.13 to 3.20, p = 0.80), and the mechanical ventilation use (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.07, p = 0.62) of the patients with COVID-19. Treatment with IVIG or CP was not significantly associated with an increase in reported adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.94-1.22, p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with IVIG could be effective and safe to improve survival for patients with COVID-19. But the benefit of CP in the treatment of COVID-19 is limited. The certainty of the evidence was moderate for all outcomes.
-
5.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.29-1.46]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.93]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.
-
6.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
Abstract
ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19 Design, Setting, and ParticipantsOpen-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020 The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation) The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]) Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours ResultsOf 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years;60 [58 3%] male), 101 (98 1%) completed the trial Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51 9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43 1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8 8% [95% CI, −10 4% to 28 0%];hazard ratio [HR], 1 40 [95% CI, 0 79-2 49];P = 26) Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91 3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68 2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2 15 [95% CI, 1 07-4 32];P = 03);among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20 7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24 1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0 88 [95% CI, 0 30-2 63];P = 83) (Pfor interaction = 17) There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15 7% vs 24 0%;OR, 0 65 [95% CI, 0 29-1 46];P = 30) or time from randomization to discharge (51 0% vs 36 0% discharged by day 28;HR, 1 61 [95% CI, 0 88-2 93];P = 12) Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87 2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37 5% of the control group (OR, 11 39 [95% CI, 3 91-33 18];P < 001) Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care Conclusion and RelevanceAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR2000029757
-
7.
Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection on Mild or Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Dong C, Sun Y, Qi Y, Zhu Y, Wei H, Wu D, Li C
BioMed research international. 2020;2020:5089378
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), we conducted this meta-analysis, as well as proposed a protocol for its application in curative processes. METHODS All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PRP for the management of mild or moderate CTS were included in this study. Database search was conducted from study inception to July 2020, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We used visual analogue scores (VAS) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) as evaluation tools for primary outcomes. Second outcomes comprised cross-sectional area (ΔCSA) and electrophysiological indexes including distal motor latency (DML), sensory peak latency (SPL), motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), compound muscle action potential (CMAP), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP). The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted with the evidence of heterogeneity. Egger' test was used to investigate publication bias. RESULTS 9 RCTs were finally screened out with 434 patients included. Control groups comprised corticosteroid injection in 5 trials, saline injection in 1 trial, and splint in 3 trials. At the 1st month after follow-up, only ΔCSA between the PRP group and the control group showed significant difference (P < 0.05). In the 3rd month, there were statistically significant differences in VAS, BCTQ, SPL, SNCV, and ΔCSA between two groups (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were found in the remaining outcomes. In the 6th month, there were statistically significant differences at BCTQ (P < 0.05) in primary outcomes and ΔCSA (P < 0.05) in secondary outcomes between two groups. As to adverse events in PRP injection, only one study reported increased pain sensation within 48 h after injections. CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that the PRP could be effective for mild to moderate CTS and superior to traditional conservative treatments in improving pain and function and reducing the swelling of the median nerve for a mid-long-term effect. To some extent, the electrophysiological indexes also improved after PRP injection compared with others conservative treatments.
-
8.
Effects of Jianpi Bushen Therapy for Treatment of CKD Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Li L, Li C, Zhou Y, Xu Q, Wang Z, Zhu X, Ba Y
Frontiers in pharmacology. 2020;11:560920
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, specifically Jianpi Bushen (JPBS) therapy, for treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) anemia. METHODS Randomized controlled trials of JPBS therapy for CKD anemia were searched and selected from seven electronic databases. The Cochrane collaboration tool was used to conduct methodological quality assessment. RevMan v5.3 software was utilized to perform data analysis. RESULTS In total, 12 randomized controlled trials with 799 patients met the meta-analysis criteria. The aggregated results indicated that JPBS therapy is beneficial for CKD anemia by improving the clinical efficacy rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): (1.14, 1.33), P < 0.00001] and hemoglobin (Hb) [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 9.55, 95% CI: (7.97, 11.14), P < 0.00001], serum ferritin (SF) [WMD = 6.22, 95% CI: (2.65, 9.79), P = 0.0006], red blood cell (RBC) [WMD = 0.31, 95% CI: (0.24, 0.38), P < 0.00001], hematocrit (HCT) [WMD = 2.95, 95% CI: (2.36, 3.54), P < 0.00001], serum creatinine (SCr) [WMD = 64.57, 95% CI: (33.51, 95.64), P < 0.0001], and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels [WMD = 3.76, 95% CI: (2.21, 5.31), P <0.00001]. Furthermore, evidence suggests that JPBS therapy is safe and does not increase adverse reactions compared with western medicine (WM) alone. CONCLUSION This study found that JPBS therapy has a positive effect on the treatment of CKD anemia. However, more well-designed, double-blind, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of JPBS therapy in the treatment of CKD anemic patients.