-
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.
Individualized red-cell transfusion strategy for non-cardiac surgery in adults: a randomized controlled trial
Liao R, Liu J, Zhang W, Zheng H, Zhu Z, Sun H, Yu Z, Jia H, Sun Y, Qin L, et al
Chinese medical journal. 2023
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Red-cell transfusion is critical for surgery during the peri-operative period; however, the transfusion threshold remains controversial mainly owing to the diversity among patients. The patient's medical status should be evaluated before making a transfusion decision. Herein, we developed an individualized transfusion strategy using the West-China-Liu's Score based on the physiology of oxygen delivery/consumption balance and designed an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial to verify whether it reduced red cell requirement as compared with that associated with restrictive and liberal strategies safely and effectively, providing valid evidence for peri-operative transfusion. METHODS Patients aged >14 years undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery with estimated blood loss > 1000 mL or 20% blood volume and hemoglobin concentration <10 g/dL were randomly assigned to an individualized strategy, a restrictive strategy following China's guideline or a liberal strategy with a transfusion threshold of hemoglobin concentration <9.5 g/dL. We evaluated two primary outcomes: the proportion of patients who received red blood cells (superiority test) and a composite of in-hospital complications and all-cause mortality by day 30 (non-inferiority test). RESULTS We enrolled 1182 patients: 379, 419, and 384 received individualized, restrictive, and liberal strategies, respectively. Approximately 30.6% (116/379) of patients in the individualized strategy received a red-cell transfusion, less than 62.5% (262/419) in the restrictive strategy (absolute risk difference, 31.92%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI]: 24.42-39.42%; odds ratio, 3.78%; 97.5% CI: 2.70-5.30%; P<0.001), and 89.8% (345/384) in the liberal strategy (absolute risk difference, 59.24%; 97.5% CI: 52.91-65.57%; odds ratio, 20.06; 97.5% CI: 12.74-31.57; P<0.001). No statistical differences were found in the composite of in-hospital complications and mortality by day 30 among the three strategies. CONCLUSION The individualized red-cell transfusion strategy using the West-China-Liu's Score reduced red-cell transfusion without increasing in-hospital complications and mortality by day 30 when compared with restrictive and liberal strategies in elective non-cardiac surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01597232.
-
3.
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Cell-Assisted Lipotransfer and Platelet-Rich Plasma Assisted Lipotransfer: What Should We Expect from a Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis?
Chen A, Zhang L, Chen P, Zhang C, Tang S, Chen X
Cell transplantation. 2021;30:963689721989607
Abstract
Due to the high absorption rate of traditional autologous fat grafting, cell-assisted lipotransfer (CAL) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-assisted lipotransfer were developed. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAL and PRP in promoting the survival of autologous fat grafting through systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE for clinical studies on CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer published from January 2010 to January 2020. Then a meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer through data analysis of fat survival rate. We also assessed the incidence of complications and multiple operations to analyze their safety. A total of 36 studies (1697 patients) were included in this review. Regardless of the recipient area, CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer significantly improved the fat survival rate (CAL vs non-CAL: 71% vs 48%, P < 0.0001; PRP vs non-PRP: 70% vs 40%, P < 0.0001; CAL vs PRP: 71% vs 70%, P = 0.7175). However, in large-volume fat grafting, such as breast reconstruction, both increased the incidence of complications and did not decrease the frequency of multiple operations after lipotransfer. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefits of CAL and PRP-assisted lipotransfer.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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
-
6.
Potential interventions for novel coronavirus in China: A systematic review
Zhang L, Liu Y
Journal of Medical Virology. 2020;92(5):479-490
-
7.
Potential effective treatment for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of the severe infectious disease with convalescent plasma therapy
Sun M, Xu Y, He H, Zhang L, Wang X, Qiu Q, Sun C, Guo Y, Qiu S, Ma K
Int J Infect Dis. 2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma (CP) has been used successfully to treat many types of infectious diseases, and it has shown initial effects in the treatment of the emerging 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, its curative effect and feasibility have yet to be confirmed by formal evaluation and well-designed clinical trials. To explore the effectiveness of treatment and predict the potential effect of CP for COVID-19, studies of different types of infectious diseases treated with CP were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Related studies were obtained from databases and screened based on the inclusion criteria. The data quality was assessed, and the data were extracted and pooled for analysis. RESULTS We included 40 studies on CP treatment for infectious diseases We found that CP treatment could reduce the risk of mortality with a low incidence of adverse events, promote the production of antibodies, show the decline in viral load, and shorten the disease course. A meta-analysis of 15 controlled studies showed that there was a significantly lower mortality rate in the group treated with CP (pooled OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.52, P < 0.001, I(2) = 54%) than in the control groups. Studies were mostly of low or very low quality with a moderate or high risk of bias. The sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. The exclusion of heterogeneity indicated that the results were stable. CONCLUSIONS CP therapy has some curative effect and is well tolerated to treat infectious diseases. It is a potentially effective treatment for COVID-19.
-
8.
Autologous whole-blood or autologous serum acupoint injection therapy for chronic urticaria: A systematic review protocol
Zhang L, Xiao X, Hui R, Shi Y, Deng Y, Zheng H, Zheng Q, Zhou S, Yao J, Cao W, et al
Medicine. 2019;98(25):e16127
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common and easily recurring skin disease in the world. Many trials have shown that autologous whole-blood or autologous serum acupoint injection therapy is effective in treating CU. There is currently no systematic review of this therapy. The program aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this therapy in patients with CU. METHODS Literature search will be conducted at Medline, PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database, Springer, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and other databases. The search date is until May 2019. We will search for popular terms including CU and this therapy. Import the literature electronically. Duplicate documents will be deleted. The primary outcome is the urticaria activity score or other validated scales. Secondary outcomes included response rate, quality of life scale, recurrence rate, and adverse events. A systematic review and search for a randomized controlled trial of this therapy for CU. Implement the Cochrane RevMan V5.3 bias assessment tool to assess bias assessment risk, data integration risk, meta-analysis risk, and subgroup analysis risk (if conditions are met). The mean difference, standard MD, and binary data will be used to represent continuous results. RESULTS This study will provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence for the treatment of CU with this therapy. CONCLUSION This study will provide new evidence for assessing the effectiveness and side effects of this therapy for CU. Since the data is not individualized, there is no need for formal ethical approval. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42019128364.