The Effectiveness and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in individuals with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers, lower-extremity venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases from database inception to June 11, 2020, for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared PRP to any other wound care without PRP in adults with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers, lower-extremity venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers. RESULTS: We included 20 randomized controlled trials and five observational studies. Compared with management without PRP, PRP therapy significantly increased complete wound closure in lower-extremity diabetic ulcers (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.32, moderate strength of evidence [SOE]), shortened time to complete wound closure, and reduced wound area and depth (low SOE). No significant changes were found in terms of wound infection, amputation, wound recurrence, or hospitalization. In patients with lower-extremity venous ulcers or pressure ulcers, the SOE was insufficient to estimate an effect on critical outcomes, such as complete wound closure or time to complete wound closure. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events. CONCLUSION: Autologous PRP may increase complete wound closure, shorten healing time, and reduce wound size in individuals with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers. The evidence is insufficient to estimate an effect on wound healing in individuals with lower-extremity venous ulcers or pressure ulcers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020172817.

Trends in reported industry payments to physicians practicing cardiac electrophysiology from 2013 to 2018 in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The need for transparency in financial relationships in the healthcare system, has culminated in Open Payments database, managed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Since its inception in 2013, the trend in such payments to physicians practicing cardiac electrophysiology was not examined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Payment information reported to CMS from January 2013 to December 2018 was obtained from the publicly available Open Payments data set using the online query tool. The data were analyzed by an individual provider and by state. An in-depth analysis of payments in the year 2018 payments was performed. From 2014 to 2018, there was an 18% increase in the total number of payments reported from 88 877 payments in 2014 to 105 000 in 2018. Despite the increase in the total number of payments reported, the average payment steadily decreased over time, resulting in an overall reduction in the total amount of payments from 2014 to 2018 ($34.9 million to $28.2 million). Payments to the top 5% of individual recipients have also decreased over this time. In 2018, 2888 unique providers received reportable payments, a total of 105 000 payments, with a median payment amount of $1378 (interquartile range: $165-$5781). The majority of these payments were for food and beverage (82%) and travel/lodging (10%). The top five payers include Boston Scientific, Medtronic Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biotronik. CONCLUSION: Among cardiac electrophysiologists, there is increased reporting of payments in the Open Payments program over time, with a notable decrease in the payment amount.