Comparative Efficacy of Rivaroxaban and Immunoglobulin Therapy in the Treatment of Livedoid Vasculopathy: A Systematic Review
Ramphall S, Rijal S, Prakash V, Ekladios H, Mulayamkuzhiyil Saju J, Mandal N, Kham NI, Shahid R, Naik SS, Venugopal S
Livedoid vasculopathy (LV) is an uncommon chronic coagulation disorder whose underlying etiology is not yet fully understood. It predominantly affects females, especially those in late adolescence. There is currently limited research on treatment options for those with this diagnosis. The present systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of rivaroxaban and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy in the treatment of livedoid vasculopathy. A detailed search was conducted from April 20, 2022, to May 1, 2022, using four databases: Elsevier, Medline Complete, Medline Ovid, and PubMed. Out of these, 20 relevant articles were used, and the data was extracted and analyzed. Both rivaroxaban and IVIG were shown to be effective treatment options with similar treatment response times. However, future large-scale clinical trials are needed to determine an established treatment regimen for these patients.
Comparative evaluation of implant stability with and without autologous platelet-rich fibrin prior to prosthetic loading - A split-mouth randomized clinical trial
Kapoor A, Ali AR, Saini N, Gautam K, Goyal A, Prakash V
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2022;26(2):137-142
CONTEXT Status of bone-implant interface or osseointegration can be assessed by using resonance frequency analysis (RFA), which measures implant stability. A modified implant surface can significantly enhance osseointegration and reduce healing period. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) consists of fibrin mesh with entrapped platelets and leukocytes that release a huge number of growth factors which contribute to wound healing and tissue regeneration. AIMS The present study aims to evaluate the effect of PRF on osseointegration in terms of implant stability. SETTINGS AND DESIGN This was a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty surgical sites were divided randomly into two groups. In Group 1 (thirty sites), PRF was placed in osteotomy sites before implant placement whereas no PRF was placed in Group 2 (thirty sites). Stability was measured using RFA in terms of implant stability quotient (ISQ) at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Intergroup comparison was done using Mann-Whitney U-test. Intragroup comparison was done using Friedman's test followed by pairwise comparison using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS On intergroup comparison, Group 1 showed higher values for ISQ which were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at 1 week and 1 month. No significant difference (P > 0.05) was found at baseline and 3 months. Intragroup comparison and further pairwise comparison revealed a highly significant difference for values between all pairs of time intervals (P < 0.01) with higher values at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS PRF has a significant effect on osseointegration of dental implants during the early healing period prior to loading.
The Comparison of Therapeutic With Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Mortality, Risk of Bleeding, and Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review
Kham NI, Shahid R, Naik SS, Ramphall S, Rijal S, Prakash V, Ekladios H, Mulayamkuzhiyil Saju J, Mandal N, Balani P
Thromboembolism is one of the most severe manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thrombotic complications have been reported even with the administration of thromboprophylaxis. This has led many experts to have variable opinions on the most effective prophylactic strategy and to anticipate the discovery of the ideal dosing of anticoagulation to reduce thromboembolic events and related mortality. We performed a systematic review to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation is superior to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation by comparing mortality rates, bleeding risks, and rates of thromboembolism. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to create our systematic review. Twenty-two records were collected from PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), after which they undertook quality appraisals. A total of 124 studies were analyzed in six systematic reviews and meta-analyses, one pooled analysis, two multicenter retrospective cohort studies, one observational study, one retrospective chart review, one evidence-based protocol, and four narrative reviews.