RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Plasma collected from recovered patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma [CCP]) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. While the therapeutic effect of early administration of CCP in COVID-19 outpatients has been recognized, conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of CCP administration in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of CCP compared to placebo or standard treatment, and to evaluate whether time from onset of symptoms to treatment initiation influenced the effect. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: CCP versus no CCP. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of CCP treatment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven RCTs were included, representing 18,877 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. When transfused within 7 days from symptom onset, CCP significantly reduced the risk of death compared to standard therapy or placebo (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95), while later CCP administration was not associated with a mortality benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06). The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated increasing mortality effects for longer interval to transfusion or worse initial clinical severity. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis examines the comparative diagnostic performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) on different respiratory tract samples, in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and non-HIV populations. METHODS: A total of 55 articles met inclusion criteria, including 11 434 PCR assays on respiratory specimens from 7835 patients at risk of PCP. QUADAS-2 tool indicated low risk of bias across all studies. Using a bivariate and random-effects meta-regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of PCR against the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Mycoses Study Group definition of proven PCP was examined. RESULTS: Quantitative PCR (qPCR) on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid provided the highest pooled sensitivity of 98.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.8%-99.5%), adequate specificity of 89.3% (95% CI, 84.4%-92.7%), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.014, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 9.19. qPCR on induced sputum provided similarly high sensitivity of 99.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.3%) but a reduced specificity of 81.5% (95% CI, 72.1%-88.3%), LR- of 0.024, and LR+ of 5.30. qPCR on upper respiratory tract samples provided lower sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI, 71.0%-96.5%), high specificity of 90.5% (95% CI, 80.9%-95.5%), LR- of 0.120, and LR+ of 9.34. There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of PCR according to HIV status of patients. CONCLUSIONS: On deeper respiratory tract specimens, PCR negativity can be used to confidently exclude PCP, but PCR positivity will likely require clinical interpretation to distinguish between colonization and active infection, partially dependent on the strength of the PCR signal (indicative of fungal burden), the specimen type, and patient population tested.
Assuntos
Líquido da Lavagem Broncoalveolar , Hospedeiro Imunocomprometido , Pneumonia por Pneumocystis , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Pneumonia por Pneumocystis/diagnóstico , Pneumonia por Pneumocystis/microbiologia , Humanos , Líquido da Lavagem Broncoalveolar/microbiologia , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase/métodos , Escarro/microbiologia , Sistema Respiratório/microbiologia , Pneumocystis carinii/genética , Pneumocystis carinii/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por HIV/diagnóstico , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase em Tempo Real/métodosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is some evidence showing rebound of COVID-19 infections in patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir between 2 and 8 days following cessation of the antiviral treatment. COVID-19 rebound is not unique to patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, but is also observed in molnupiravir recipients, in patients who did not receive any antiviral treatment and in patients who received convalescent plasma (CP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a systematic review with meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating rates of virologic and clinical rebound in COVID-19 patients receiving antiviral agents, CP or no treatment. Both randomized clinical trials and controlled cohort studies were considered. The methodological quality of trials was assessed using ROB-2 and ROBIN-1 checklists, and the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Data were available from 16 trials. The occurrence of virologic rebound was more commonly observed among nirmatrelvir recipients than among untreated patients (relative risk [RR]=2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-3.28; p=0.0007). No differences were observed in the occurrence of virologic rebound between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir recipients (RR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.43). Similar rates of virologic rebounds were observed in molnupiravir recipients and untreated patients (RR=1.14; 95% CI: 0.81-1.6). One study in the pre-omicron period compared rates of virologic rebound between patients receiving standard of care with or without CP: no differences were observed between groups (RR=1.04; 95% CI: 0.55-1.99). Rates of clinical rebound were reported in seven trials, five evaluating nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and untreated patients, and two evaluating nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir recipients. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed. For all these comparisons, the certainty of the available evidence was graded as low or moderate. DISCUSSION: Virologic rebound of COVID-19 infections appears to be mild and self-limited, and was observed more commonly in nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients than in untreated patients, but was also observed in patients treated with molnupiravir or CP.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a non-surgical therapy for facial rejuvenation is increasingly adopted. This article aims to review the literature and critically appraise the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PRP for facial rejuvenation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of PRP use for facial rejuvenation. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirteen SRs published between 2015 and 2023, reporting data from 114 overlapping reports, based on 28 individual primary studies (18 uncontrolled reports), were included in this umbrella review. Eight primary studies evaluated PRP in combination with other treatments (laser therapy, fat grafting, hyaluronic acid, basic fibroblast growth factor), and 20 PRP monotherapy. Most of the included primary studies were uncontrolled, and meta-analysis for outcomes related to facial rejuvenation was conducted in only 1 of the 13 SRs, showing that patients treated with PRP as an adjunct treatment have increased satisfaction over controls without PRP (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.25/1; p=0-001; low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias (ROB) and inconsistency). No other quantitative data were available from the SRs, although 4 SRs concluded in a descriptive way reveal that PRP combined with laser therapy increased subject satisfaction and skin elasticity, and decreased the erythema index (very low certainty of evidence due to imprecision, unsystematic clinical observations, and ROB). The occurrence of adverse events was a predefined outcome in only 2 SRs (15%). Almost all the SRs demonstrated poor compliance with the AMSTAR 2 items, and the confidence in the results of SRs was graded as low or critically low in 12 of the 13 SRs. DISCUSSION: The available evidence is insufficient to suggest firm conclusions about the use of PRP, alone or in combination with other treatments, in promoting facial rejuvenation.
RESUMO
Plasma collected from people recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma, CCP) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the pandemic. CCP was, however, often employed in combination with other drugs, such as the antiviral remdesivir and glucocorticoids. The possible effect of such interaction has never been investigated systematically. To assess the safety and efficacy of CCP combined with other agents for treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, a systematic literature search using appropriate Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane central, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of CCP combined with other treatments versus CCP alone. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measure of treatment effect was the risk ratio (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 11 studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 3 observational) were included in the systematic review, 4 studies with CCP combined with remdesivir and 6 studies with CCP combined with corticosteroids, all involving hospitalized patients. One RCT reported information on both remdesivir and steroids use with CCP. The use of CCP combined with remdesivir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.97; p = 0.03; moderate certainty of evidence), while the use of steroids with CCP did not modify the mortality risk (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.34-1.51; p = 0.38; very low certainty of evidence). Not enough safety data were retrieved form the systematic literature analysis. The current evidence from the literature suggests a potential beneficial effect on mortality of combined CCP plus remdesivir compared to CCP alone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No significant clinical interaction was found between CCP and steroids.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Estado Terminal/terapia , Soroterapia para COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) related to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixteen SRs with meta-analysis published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 108 overlapping reports, based on 43 individual primary studies [3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 40 non-RCTs]. In outpatient settings the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced overall mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease compared with controls (from moderate to low certainty of evidence); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease in both immunized and non-immunized patients. No differences in the occurrence of any adverse events between groups were observed in the large majority of SRs; serious adverse events, including adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, were reported with lower prevalence in nirmatrelvir recipients compared with controls (from low to moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate certainty of evidence from SRs that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces mortality, clinical progression and hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared with controls, without increasing the occurrence of overall and serious adverse events. Based on the overall methodological assessment, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Soroterapia para COVID-19 , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Hospitalização , Antivirais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
This overview of reviews (i.e., an umbrella review) is designed to reappraise the validity of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to the performance of Aspergillus PCR tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; the quality of the evidence (QOE) within each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach. Eight out of 12 SRs were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative assessment. Five SRs evaluated Aspergillus PCR on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and three on blood specimens. The eight SRs included 167 overlapping reports (59 evaluating PCR in blood specimens, and 108 in BAL), based on 107 individual primary studies (98 trials with a cohort design, and 19 with a case-control design). In BAL specimens, the mean sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.57 to 0.91, and from 0.92 to 0.97, respectively (QOE: very low to low). In blood specimens (whole blood or serum), the mean sensitivity ranged from 0.57 to 0.84, and the mean specificity from 0.58 to 0.95 (QOE: low to moderate). Across studies, only a low proportion of AMSTAR-2 critical domains were unmet (1.8%), demonstrating a high quality of methodological assessment. Conclusions. Based on the overall methodological assessment of the reviews included, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A reappraisal of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses validity related to Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to regimens PRP-free for the treatment of acne scars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An overview of SRs. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence of primary studies was appraised following the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fifteen SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 124 overlapping reports, based on 34 individual primary studies (10 parallel arm randomized trials, 21 split-face studies, and 3 uncontrolled studies). Most of the studies evaluated combination of PRP with microneedling or with laser therapy compared to microneedling or laser therapy without PRP. Clinical improvement (reported as degree of improvement or improvement score) and patient's satisfaction rate were significantly higher in PRP recipients compared to controls. Crusting time and duration of erythema were significantly shorter in PRP recipients compared to controls. Most of the reviews considered in this overview can be considered of low methodological quality due to the fact that several critical methodological requirements of AMSTAR-2 checklist were unmet or partially met; only 6 of the 15 reviews incorporated study quality in their conclusions, and no GRADE assessment was performed for the reported outcomes in any of the SRs. With the GRADE approach, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes analysed ranged from very low to low due to risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision. DISCUSSION: The low or very low certainty of evidence does not support clear clinical decision about the PRP use in combination with microneedling or laser therapy for the treatment of acne scars. Further well-designed studies are required to improve the evidence base for PRP combination therapy for acne scars.
RESUMO
This review is focused on the use of hyperimmune globulin therapy to treat some infectious diseases of viral or bacterial origin. Despite the introduction of antibiotics and vaccines, plasma immunoglobulin therapy from whole blood donation can still play a key role. These treatments provide passive transfer of high-titer antibodies that either reduces the risk or the severity of the infection and offer immediate but short-term protection against specific diseases. Antibody preparations derived from immunized human donors are commonly used for the prophylaxis and treatment of rabies, hepatitis A and B viruses, varicella-zoster virus, and pneumonia caused by respiratory syncytial virus, Clostridium tetani, Clostridium botulinum. The use of hyperimmune globulin therapy is a promising challenge, especially for the treatment of emerging viral infections for which there are no specific therapies or licensed vaccines.
Assuntos
Doenças Transmissíveis , Globulinas , Vacinas , Humanos , Imunoglobulinas/uso terapêutico , Imunização Passiva , Doenças Transmissíveis/terapia , Anticorpos AntiviraisRESUMO
Importance: Patients who are immunocompromised have increased risk for morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because they less frequently mount antibody responses to vaccines. Although neutralizing anti-spike monoclonal-antibody treatment has been widely used to treat COVID-19, evolutions of SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with monoclonal antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants and greater virulence and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma has increased on the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Objective: To assess the growing number of reports of clinical experiences of patients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and treated with specific neutralizing antibodies via COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion. Data Sources: On August 12, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials, matched cohort studies, and case report or series on COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised were included. The electronic search yielded 462 unique records, of which 199 were considered for full-text screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled. Main Outcomes and Meaures: The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality after COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion; exploratory subgroup analyses were performed based on putative factors associated with the potential mortality benefit of convalescent plasma. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 3 randomized clinical trials enrolling 1487 participants and 5 controlled studies. Additionally, 125 case series or reports enrolling 265 participants and 13 uncontrolled large case series enrolling 358 participants were included. Separate meta-analyses, using models both stratified and pooled by study type (ie, randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies), demonstrated that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for the amalgam of both randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies (risk ratio [RR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with mortality benefit for patients who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , COVID-19/etiologia , SARS-CoV-2 , Transfusão de Componentes Sanguíneos , Imunização Passiva , Plasma , Soroterapia para COVID-19 , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
Background: During pandemics, early outpatient treatments reduce the health system burden. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19 outpatients have tested therapeutic agents, but no RCT or systematic review has been conducted comparing the efficacy of the main outpatient treatment classes to each other. We aimed in this systematic review of outpatient RCTs in COVID-19 to compare hospitalisation rate reductions with four classes of treatment: convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals and repurposed drugs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all COVID-19 outpatient RCTs that included the endpoint of progression to hospitalisation. We assembled, from multiple published and preprint databases, participant characteristics, hospitalisations, resolution of symptoms and mortality from January 2020 to May 21, 2023. The risk of bias from COVID-NMA was incorporated into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We measured heterogeneity with I 2 . Meta-analysis by a random or fixed effect model dependent on significant heterogeneity (I 2 >50%) was performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022369181. Findings: The search identified 281 studies of which 54 RCTs for 30 diverse interventions were included in the final analysis. These trials, performed largely in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, focused on populations with at least one COVID-19 hospitalisation risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.31 [95% CI=0.24-0.40]) had highest efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.90]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.78 [95% CI=0.48-1.33]) for hospital reduction. Repurposed drugs (OR=0.82 [95% CI-0.72-0.93]) had lower efficacy. Interpretation: Inasmuch as omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are now resistant to monoclonal antibodies, oral antivirals are the preferred treatment in outpatients where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised. Funding: US Department of Defense and National Institute of Health. Research in context: Evidence before this study: We systematically searched the published and preprint data bases for outpatient randomized clinical trials of treatment of COVID-19 disease with hospitalisation as an endpoint. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confined the reviews to specific classes such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals or repurposed drugs. Few comparisons have been made between these therapeutic classes. The trials took place both in the pre-vaccination and the vaccination era, spanning periods with dominance of different COVID variants. We sought to compare efficacy between the four classes of treatments listed above when used in outpatient COVID-19 patients as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Added value of this study: This systematic review and meta-analysis brings together trials that assessed hospitalisation rates in diverse COVID-19 outpatient populations varying in age and comorbidities, permitting us to assess the efficacy of interventions both within and across therapeutic classes. While heterogeneity exists within and between these intervention classes, the meta-analysis can be placed in context of trial diverse populations over variant time periods of the pandemic. At present most of the world population has either had COVID-19 or been vaccinated with a high seropositivity rate, indicating that future placebo-controlled trials will be limited because of the sample sizes required to document hospitalisation outcomes. Implications of all the available evidence: Numerous diverse therapeutic tools need to be ready for a resilient response to changing SARS-CoV-2 variants in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatient populations. To date few head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. This systematic review compares outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy between classes and amongst interventions within the four classes. Monoclonals have lost efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events, while intravenous interventions like convalescent plasma or remdesivir remain resilient options for the immunocompromised, and, in the case of CCP, in resource constrained settings with limited availability of oral drugs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated ultrasound (US)-guided injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as conservative treatment of tendinopathies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of US-guided PRP for tendinopathies. RESULTS: We found 33 RCT (2,025 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 8 in lateral epicondylitis, 5 in plantar fasciitis, 5 in Achilles tendinopathy, 7 in rotator cuff tendinopathy, 3 in patellar tendinopathy and 5 in carpal tunnel syndrome. PRP, given as a single injection (20 trials) or multiple injections (13 trials), was compared to US-guided injection of steroids, saline, autologous whole blood, local anesthetic, dry needling, prolotherapy, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, or with non-injective interventions. The outcomes more commonly reported included pain and functional measures, subgrouped as in the short-term (<3 months from the intervention), medium-term (3 to 6 months) or long-term (≥12 months). No clear between-group differences in these outcomes were observed in patients with lateral epicondylitis, plantar fasciitis, or Achilles, rotator cuff or patellar tendinopathy. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, visual analog scale scores for pain at 3 and 6 months and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire severity scores at 1, 3 and 6 months were significantly lower in PRP recipients than in controls. The certainty of evidence of all these comparisons was graded as low or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency. Pain at the injection site was more common among PRP recipients than among controls receiving other US-guided injections. DISCUSSION: In patients with tendinopathies, a trend towards pain reduction and functional improvement from baseline was observed after US-guided PRP injection, but in the majority of the comparisons, the effect size was comparable to that observed in control groups.
Assuntos
Síndrome do Túnel Carpal , Fasciíte Plantar , Plasma Rico em Plaquetas , Tendinopatia , Cotovelo de Tenista , Humanos , Cotovelo de Tenista/diagnóstico por imagem , Cotovelo de Tenista/terapia , Tendinopatia/diagnóstico por imagem , Tendinopatia/terapia , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Dor , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In recent years, co-infection from HIV and Treponema pallidum has become more common. Early detection of the co-infection allows us to implement therapeutic strategies to control the evolution of the disease and to contain its transmission in the general population. The donor population is the target of choice for the detection of early-stage infections. This study aims to evaluate the trend of HIV/T. pallidum positivity in the Italian blood donor population, defining the type of donor most involved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive blood donors' records, covering the period between January 2009 and December 2021, was conducted using the database of the National Blood Information System. The data extracted were the results of of confirmed positivity notifications for T. pallidum and sociodemographic variables of blood donors. The effect of age, female gender, donor category, year, and Italian origin on the probability of HIV/T. pallidum co-infection were estimated using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: In the period of observation, we found 79 subjects with HIV/T. pallidum dual co-infection, 3 with HIV/HCV/T. pallidum triple co-infections, and 2 with HIV/HBV/T. pallidum triple co-infections. Seventy-one out of 84 co-infections (89%) were among first-time tested donors, reporting sexual behaviors at risk. The results of the logistic regression show that age, female gender and regular donor status were not associated with HIV/T. pallidum co-infection. DISCUSSION: The transfusion network can provide a valid contribution to containing the spread of HIV and T. pallidum infections, raising the awareness of donors, and promptly referring the donor with confirmed positivity to the reference specialist.
Assuntos
Coinfecção , Infecções por HIV , Sífilis , Humanos , Feminino , Treponema pallidum , Doadores de Sangue , Sífilis/epidemiologia , Coinfecção/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Soroepidemiológicos , Prevalência , Infecções por HIV/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during the last years. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the benefit of PRP in the treatment of alopecia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and CENTRAL for relevant data. Treatment effect was described by mean difference (MD) and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. RESULTS: We found 27 controlled trials (1,117 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 18 trials (713 subjects) in patients with AGA, and 9 (404 subjects) in patients with AA. Eleven studies had a split head design. There was heterogeneity in types of PRP (e.g., activated and non-activated) and administration schedules. PRP was compared to saline injections (18 studies), local steroid injections (4 studies) and other comparators (5 studies). Most commonly reported outcomes were hair density and hair regrowth. It was not possible to pool all outcome data because of heterogeneity in reporting, and because reporting was often limited to a single study. Compared to saline injections, PRP injections increased hair density over a medium-term follow-up (MD, 25.6 hairs/cm2; 95 % CI: 2.62-48.57), but the evidence was rated as low quality due to inconsistency and risk of bias. In individuals with AA, it is unclear whether PRP injection compared with triamcinolone injection increase the rate of subjects with hair regrowth (very-low quality of evidence due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias). There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence showing benefit of PRP for treatment of alopecia, and most of this evidence is of low quality.
Assuntos
Alopecia em Áreas , Plasma Rico em Plaquetas , Humanos , Alopecia em Áreas/terapia , Protocolos Clínicos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Purpose: A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19. Material and Methods: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach. Results: 35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for mechanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions: There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Universal serological screening in endemic areas is essential for preventing Chagas disease transmission by transfusions, while in non-endemic areas, screening is provided only to donors exposed to the infection risk. In this respect, in order to ensure high and uniform standards of quality and safety of blood components, the Italian National Blood Centre conducted a survey to detect information on management of donors at risk of Chagas disease and on the current transfusion risk. METHODS: The National Blood Centre conducted a survey on preventive measures for Chagas disease in the years 2020-2021. RESULTS: Survey results are broadly representative of the national situation; out of 24,269 tested donors, only 15 donors were confirmed positive (0.4 out of 100,000 donors). This rate is lower than the number of positive donors (72/100,000) for transfusion transmissible infections (HIV, HBV, HCV, and T. pallidum) in the same period. Furthermore, the number of T. cruzi positive blood donors is lower than the T. cruzi positive subjects in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: In Italy, T. cruzi infection transfusion risk may be considered still very low, and this is confirmed by the absence of documented transfusion transmission.