Abstract

OBJECTIVES We aimed to evaluate the optimal regimen, efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) and aminocaproic acid (EACA) for patients after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS The network meta-analysis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. The outcomes were total blood loss, transfusion rates, hemoglobin (HB) drop, and risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Subgroup analyses were performed among most effective regimens to determine the influences of timing and number of doses. RESULTS A total of 56 eligible RCTs with different regimens were assessed. For reducing total blood loss, all high doses of TXA and EACA except high dose of intra-articular (IA) TXA, as well as medium dose of combination of intravenous and intra-articular (combined IV/IA) TXA were most effective. All high doses of TXA, as well as medium dose of combined IV/IA TXA did not show inferiority in reducing transfusion rates and HB drop compared with other regimens. No regimens showed higher risk for PE or DVT compared with placebo, and no statistical differences were seen among most effective regimens in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS As effective as high doses of EACA and TXA, medium dose (20-40 mg/kg or 1.5-3.0 g) of combined IV/IA TXA was enough to control bleeding for patients after THA without increasing risk for PE/DVT. TXA was at least 5 times more potent than EACA. Timing and number of doses had few influences on blood conserving efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. OBJECTIVE To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. DATA SOURCES From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. RESULTS Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Platelet-rich concentrates, namely platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), have recently shown potential roles in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and reducing treatment duration. Our study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of platelet-rich concentrates on OTM. MATERIALS AND METHODS An electronic search of 11 databases, followed by a hand search of reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews, was conducted up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials investigating OTM of patients with platelet-rich concentrates were included. Risk of bias was assessed by version 2 of Cochrane tool (RoB 2) for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. RESULTS Among 715 records initially identified, 9 studies were included, of which 3 used PRP and the other 6 applied PRF. 7 studies supported a positive relationship between platelet-rich concentrates and OTM, but the other 2 studies reported a null and a negative effect of PRF, respectively. The overall qualities of evidence were moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS Platelet-rich concentrates as PRP and PRF seem to be effective in accelerating OTM at early stages, while their long-term efficacy remains controversial. Repeated application of platelet concentrates may increase the accelerated stability of OTM.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. INTERVENTIONS A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. RESULTS Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection combined with arthroscopic microfracture technique for knee cartilage injury. METHODS Seventy-nine patients with knee cartilage injury were randomly divided into a control group (CG, n=39) and an observation group (OBG, n=40). Both of the groups were treated with the arthroscopic microfracture technique, and the OBG was additionally treated with PRP injection. RESULTS The VAS scores for pain in the affected area of the OBG were lower than those of the CG at 1, 3, 5, and 7 days after surgery (P < 0.05). Knee flexion, hyperextension, and rotation angles in the OBG were greater than those in the CG at 1 month after surgery (P < 0.05). IKDC scores in the OBG were lower than those in the CG at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after surgery (P < 0.05). The Tegner and Lysholm scores in the OBG were higher than those in the CG at 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery (P < 0.05). The complication rate in the OBG was 10.00%, which was lower than that of 28.21% in the CG (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The efficacy of microfracture technique combined with PRP injection in the treatment of knee joint cartilage injury is significantly improved compared with that of microfracture technique alone, which can reduce postoperative complications and improve the range of motion and function of the knee joint.

Abstract

As the world faced the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020, numerous clinical trials were initiated in many locations in an effort to establish the efficacy (or lack thereof) of potential treatments. As the pandemic has been shifting locations rapidly, individual studies have been at risk of failing to meet recruitment targets because of declining numbers of eligible patients with COVID-19 encountered at participating sites. It has become clear that it might take several more COVID-19 surges at the same location to achieve full enrollment and to find answers about what treatments are effective for this disease. This paper proposes an innovative approach for pooling patient-level data from multiple ongoing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have not been configured as a network of sites. We present the statistical analysis plan of a prospective individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) from ongoing RCTs of convalescent plasma (CP). We employ an adaptive Bayesian approach for continuously monitoring the accumulating pooled data via posterior probabilities for safety, efficacy, and harm. Although we focus on RCTs for CP and address specific challenges related to CP treatment for COVID-19, the proposed framework is generally applicable to pooling data from RCTs for other therapies and disease settings in order to find answers in weeks or months, rather than years.

Abstract

AIM: To identify the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and rapid rehabilitation concepts on the outcomes of patients with haemophilia A undergoing total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. METHODS The primary endpoint was postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were pain scores, joint function scores, haemoglobin levels at 3 and 7 days after surgery and satisfaction with hospitalization. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Compared with the routine nursing group, the ERAS group showed shorter postoperative hospital stay (14.2 SD 0.8 vs. 16.6 ± 1.3 days, p < .001), smaller amounts of blood transfusion (924 SD 317 vs. 1,263 SD 449 ml, p = .020) and coagulation factors (37,325 SD 5,996 vs. 48,475 SD 8,019 U, p < .001), lower pain scores at 3 (3.3 SD 0.7 vs. 4.3 SD 0.7, p = .002) and 7 (2.3 SD 0.7 vs. 2.8 ± 0.5, p = .015) days, lower hospital for special surgery knee scores at 3 (59.9 SD 7.8 vs. 53.6 SD 5.9, p = .016) and 7 (77.9 SD 6.9 vs. 71.1 ± 7.1, p = .009) days and higher satisfaction with hospitalization (94.3 SD 1.4 vs. 92.7 SD 1.6, p = .004).

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

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.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review and identify the risk factors for severe hemorrhage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Methods: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE database for literature related to the risk factors of severe hemorrhage after PCNL requiring angiography and embolization through to September 2019. The necessary data for each eligible study were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 to identify whether there was a statistical association between risk factors and severe hemorrhage post-PCNL. Results: The results of this meta-analysis showed that urinary tract infection (UTI) (OR =1.98, 95% CI, 1.21-3.26, P=0.007), diabetes mellitus (OR =4.07, 95% CI, 1.83-9.06, P=0.001), staghorn stone (OR =3.49, 95% CI, 1.25-9.76, P=0.017), and multiple tracts (OR =2.09, 95% CI, 1.33-3.28, P=0.001) were independent risk factors for severe hemorrhage post-PCNL, while hypertension (OR =1.18, 95% CI, 0.58-2.42, P=0.65) showed no significant statistical difference. Conclusions: Urologists should focus on the above identified risk factors for severe hemorrhage post-PCNL, including UTI, diabetes mellitus, staghorn stone, and multiple tracts. More high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these conclusions.