1.
Clinical studies on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy for chronic cutaneous ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Qu S, Hu Z, Zhang Y, Wang P, Li S, Huang S, Dong Y, Xu H, Rong Y, Zhu W, et al
Advances in wound care. 2021
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be a potential drug for treatment of chronic refractory ulcers, which increase the risk of systemic infection and local canceration. However, the efficacy and safety of clinical application of PRP are still controversial. Thus, this study was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PRP in patients with chronic ulcers. Recent Advances: For this meta-analysis, Cochrane's Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was the proportion of completely healed chronic ulcers. CRITICAL ISSUES Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with the control group, PRP significantly increased the fraction of healed ulcers (pooled RR =1.50; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.87; I2=47.8%). In autologous PRP (APRP) and homologous PRP (HPRP) subgroups, there were statistical differences between the control group vs. treatment subgroup (pooled RR=1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.54, I2=25.7%; pooled RR=3.53, 95% CI 1.94 to 6.43, I2=0.0%, respectively). In terms of percent of chronic ulcers area healed, there was a statistically significant difference between the PRP-treated group vs. the control group (SMD=1.37, 95%CI=0.91 to 1.82, I2=22.1 %). As for PRP safety, there existed a statistically significant difference between the APRP subgroup and the HPRP subgroup, respectively (pooled RR=0.58; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; I2=0.0%) and (pooled RR=4.12; 95% CI 1.55 to 10.96; I2=6.8%). FUTURE DIRECTIONS Our findings shows that PRP may be a beneficial treatment of chronic skin ulcers and that APRP may be much safer than HPRP.
2.
Effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review
Li J, Xu H, Gao Q, Wen Y
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2012;68((5):):469-77.
Abstract
PURPOSE Current evidence suggests that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), including erythropoietin and darbepoetin, may have a direct cardio-protective effect. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of ESAs in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results. Here, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to assess whether the administration of ESAs can improve cardiac functional parameters, such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and attenuate infarct size in patients with acute STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS The PubMed, EBSCO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant RCT studies on ESAs published before May 13, 2011. A total of nine RCTs involving 1,244 participants were identified. The original data of these studies were aggregated using fixed effect models. Compared with controls, the administration of ESAs showed a slight but significant improvement in LVEF (1.38%; 95% confidence interval 0.38-2.37%; p[THIN SPACE]=[THIN SPACE]0.007). However, no significant improvement in LVEDV, LVESV, and infarct size was observed, and no increase in all-cause severe adverse effect was indicated. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis indicates that the superiority of ESAs over conventional therapy in patients with acute STEMI is limited using current procedures. However, there is evidence to suggest that the timing and dosing of ESA administration may be optimized. Moreover, the long-term cardio-protective effect of ESAs in this patient population may be beneficial and worth exploring.