Zidovudine/Lamivudine vs. Abacavir/Lamivudine vs. Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in fixed-dose combinations as initial treatment for HIV patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction: Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of these drugs which have been approved by different guidelines, each with divergent results in terms of efficacy and safety.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of these three combinations.Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fixed doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate / Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), Abacavir / Lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and Zidovudine / Lamivudine (ZDV/3TC).Results: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested higher efficacy with TDF/FTC vs. ABC/3TC at 96 weeks and vs. ZDV/3TC at 48 weeks. However, there is clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis were performed by third drug and by level of viral load prior to treatment, and found no differences in virological control. Network meta-analysis could only be carried out with TDF/FTC vs. ZDV/3TC, and the proportion of patients with virological response, with no differences at 48 weeks nor at 96 weeks. Direct comparisons showed an increased risk of bone marrow suppression of ZDV/3TC vs. TDF/FTC and of ABC/3TC hypersensitivity reactions vs. ZDV/3TCConclusions: The results did not show differences in effectiveness among the interventions. However, due to the heterogeneity of the third drug and the follow-up time between the included studies, this result is not definitive. The results raise the need for further studies to help improve treatment recommendations in patients infected with HIV.

Download Full-text

The Effect of L-Arginine Supplementation on Obesity-Related Indices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research ◽

10.1024/0300-9831/a000523 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 1-11 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi ◽

Alireza Milajerdi ◽

Somaye Fatahi ◽

Jamal Rahmani ◽

Meysam Zarezadeh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Body Weight ◽

Waist Circumference ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Weighted Mean Difference ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity ◽

Mean Differences ◽

Arginine Supplementation

Abstract. The clinical studies regarding the effect of L-arginine in human anthropometry have not been fully consistent, therefore, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in order to precisely evaluate and quantify the efficacy of L-arginine on weight, waist circumference, and BMI. We searched online databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar for relevant articles up to September 2017. Eligible articles were reviewed by two independent investigators. Mean differences of the outcomes were used for calculation of weighted mean difference (WMD) derived from the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was examined using Cochran’s Q-test and I 2 index. Funnel plot and Egger’s tests were performed to assess the publication bias. In our initial search, we found 1598 publications, of which 8 RCTs (9 treatment arms) were included. The results of the meta-analysis displayed a significant reduction in WC following L-arginine supplementation (WMD: −2.97 cm; 95% CI: −4.75 to −1.18, P = 0.001). However, L-arginine intervention had not elicited a significant effect on BMI (WMD: −0.51 kg/m2; 95% CI: −1.11 to .08, P = 0.09) and body weight (WMD: −0.57 kg; 95% CI: −1.77 to 0.61, P = 0.34). Subgroup analyses displayed that longer-term interventions (≥8 weeks) had a positive effect on body weight and using < 8 g/day L-arginine with longer duration (≥8 weeks) could significantly decrease BMI. In conclusion, this meta-analysis result suggested L-arginine supplementation could reduce waist circumference without any significant effect on body weight and body mass index.

Download Full-text

Favipiravir for treating patients with novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039730 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (7) ◽

pp. e039730 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽

Soheil Hassanipour ◽

Djavad Ghoddoosi-Nejad

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Code Of Ethics ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Randomised Clinical Trials ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity

IntroductionAn outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China, in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Sciences, Cochrane and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, for the ongoing clinical trials. All randomised clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of favipiravir compared with other control groups for the treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 will be included. Patients’ survival at the end of the treatment as well as the follow-up will be the primary outcome of the treatment, followed by the time and rate of the patient with a negative COVID-19 test. The desired secondary outcome will consist of a decreased rate of symptoms, proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of the hospital stay, ICU treatments, the quality of life and additional adverse events. Data synthesis will be conducted using CMA V.2. Two independent investigators will be screening titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies, based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will then independently extract the data and appraise the quality of said studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I2 test. A funnel plot, Egger’s test and Begg’s test will be used for detecting asymmetry to explore possible publication bias.Ethics and disseminationAll findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will help identify the safety and efficacy of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19. Given that the design of the study is a systematic review, there is no need to follow the code of ethics protocol. The results of this study will be published in a reputable journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180032.

Download Full-text

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.n1034 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. n1034 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Li Wang ◽

Patrick J Hong ◽

Curtis May ◽

Yasir Rehman ◽

Yvgeniy Oparin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Chronic Pain ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Pain Relief ◽

Physical Functioning ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Medical Cannabis ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Small Improvement

Abstract Objective To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. Study selection Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. Data extraction and synthesis Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Results A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.50 cm (95% CI −0.75 to −0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of −0.35 cm (−0.55 to −0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). Conclusions Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. Systematic review registration https://osf.io/3pwn2

Download Full-text

Association of l-Arginine Supplementation with Markers of Endothelial Function in Patients with Cardiovascular or Metabolic Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu11010015 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 15 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Josianne Rodrigues-Krause ◽

Mauricio Krause ◽

Ilanna Rocha ◽

Daniel Umpierre ◽

Ana Fayh

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Metabolic Diseases ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Inconsistency Index ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity ◽

Nitrite Nitrate ◽

Arginine Supplementation

l-Arginine supplementation is a potential therapy for treating cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. However, the use of distinct l-arginine sources, intervened populations, and treatment regimens may have yielded confusion about their efficacy. This research constitutes a systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the effects of l-arginine supplementation compared to placebo in individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, or diabetes. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials and interventions based on oral supplementation of l-arginine with a minimum duration of three days; comparison groups consisted of individuals with the same disease condition receiving an oral placebo substance. The primary outcome was flow-mediated dilation, and secondary outcomes were nitrite/nitrate (NOx) rate and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA). Statistical heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analyses was assessed using the inconsistency index (I2). Fifty-four full-text articles from 3761 retrieved references were assessed for eligibility. After exclusions, 13 studies were included for data extraction. There was no difference in blood flow after post-ischemic hyperemia between the supplementation of l-arginine and placebo groups before and after the intervention period (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.30; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = −0.85 to 1.46; I2 = 96%). Sensitivity analysis showed decreased heterogeneity when the studies that most favor arginine and placebo were removed, and positive results in favor of arginine supplementation were found (SMD = 0.59; 95% CIs = 0.10 to 1.08; I2 = 75%). No difference was found in meta-analytical estimates of NOx and ADMA responses between arginine or placebo treatments. Overall, the results indicated that oral l-arginine supplementation was not associated with improvements on selected variables in these patients (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017077289).

Download Full-text

Cannabinoids in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Medicine Insights Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1177/1179544120906461 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 ◽

pp. 117954412090646 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Herman Johal ◽

Tahira Devji ◽

Yaping Chang ◽

Jonathan Simone ◽

Christopher Vannabouathong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Pain ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Route Of Administration ◽

Rheumatic Arthritis ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Difference

Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain ( P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Download Full-text

Benefits of Exercise in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research ◽

10.9734/jammr/2021/v33i2031121 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 183-198

Author(s):

Reagan F. Cabahug ◽

Gina L. Montalan ◽

Irma P. Yape ◽

Maria Christina M. Laurenciana

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Exercise Therapy ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Heart Failure Patients ◽

Therapy Program ◽

All Cause Mortality

Objective: To update Sagar et.al. systematic review and meta-analysis on exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on exercised-based cardiac rehabilitation. MEDLINE, OVID and cross references were searched for RCTs published between February 2013 up to August 2018. Trials with at least 6 months follow up were included if exercise training program alone or as a component of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation was compared with groups without exercise prescription. Results: A total of 11,989 patients were included in the 43 randomized clinical trials predominantly with reduced EF and NYHA class ll -lll. Exercise training program prescription in heart failure patients reduced the all-cause mortality (RR=0.76; 95%CI= 0.66, 0.87; P= 0.001), all cause hospitalization after 12 months (RR=0.70; 95% CI= 0.52, 0.96; P= 0.02) rehospitalization due to heart failure (RR= 0.49; 95% CI= 0.44, 0.55; P= <0.0001) and improvement in quality-of-life scores (RR= -0.36; 95% CI= -0.58, -0.14; P= 0.002). Among these health quality related outcomes, the all-cause mortality and the hospitalization admission after 12 months follow up showed a significant association with exercise therapy program, particularly on exercise setting(p=0.026) and exercise dose (p=0.013), respectively, as revealed by the univariate meta-regression results. Conclusion: This study has shown that exercise therapy either in center or home based has benefited heart failure patients in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality up to 12 months, hospital admission up 12 months, and has given a better quality of life. The new studies included have further strengthened the findings of previous studies that an exercise therapy program provides benefit to heart failure patients, either as an “alone” intervention or together with a cardiac rehabilitation program; and that the setting and dose of an exercise therapy program provide significant contribution to a reduced risk in all-cause mortality and hospitalization after 12 months follow up, respectively.

Download Full-text

MTA and Ferric Sulfate in Pulpotomy Outcomes of Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry ◽

10.17796/jcpd.39.1.b454r616m2582373 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (1) ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

S Asgary ◽

A Shirvani ◽

M Fazlyab

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mineral Trioxide Aggregate ◽

Ferric Sulfate ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Primary Molar ◽

Long Term Treatment

Objective: Methods of systematic review and meta analysis were employed to compare the success rate of pulpotomy of primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and ferric sulfate (FS) as two regenerative and preservative agents, respectively. Study design: After raising a PICO question (In pulpotomy of vital carious-exposed primary molars, how does MTA compare to FS in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes?) and determining the search strategy, MeSH-matching keywords were searched in four electronic databases and retrieved papers were examined in titles, and if necessary abstracts and full texts, to be relevant. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating pulpotomy of vital primary molars after carious/traumatic exposure conducted with either FS or MTA, with at least a 6-month recall, tooth restorability, and those considering clinical and radiographic signs/symptoms, were included. The nonrandomized allocation and absence of comparison between the treatment groups caused the exclusion of the article. The quality of the RCTs and also their risk of bias (low, moderate, high), were assessed using a modification of van Tulder list; for meta-analysis of the matching studies, the extracted data were analyzed by Mantel Hanszel analysis. Results: A total number of 620 articles were found. After exclusion of the common titles and application of the eligibility criteria, 4 RCTs [12-month follow-up: n=3, 24-month follow-up: n=4, in total: 264 teeth) comparing MTA and FS, were selected. It was showed that the 12-month outcome of both materials were similar [RR= 0.642 (CI 95%: 0.225-1.833, P=0.407)], while the two-year follow-up results revealed significant differences in treatment outcome, in favor of MTA [RR was 0.300 (CI 95%: 0.132-0.683, P=0.004)]. Conclusion: MTA demonstrated superior long-term treatment outcomes in pulpotomy of primary molars than FS. Clinical Significance: Considering the advantages of MTA compared to FS and its better clinical results, use of this bioregenerative material in primary molar pulpotomy is recommended.

Download Full-text

The effect of bracket slot size on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment: A systematic review

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/031217-185.1 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 88 (1) ◽

pp. 100-106 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Elma P. Vieira ◽

Bruna S. D. Watanabe ◽

Luana F. Pontes ◽

José N. F. Mattos ◽

Lucianne C. Maia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Root Resorption ◽

Treatment Time ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Duration Of Treatment ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Slot Size

ABSTRACT Objectives: To assess, by means of a systematic review, the scientific evidence of the influence of 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slots on treatment time, efficiency of space closure, efficiency of alignment, quality of orthodontic finishing, level of discomfort, and level of root resorption. Materials and Methods: The PubMed, Bireme, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Open Grey, and Google Scholar databases were searched, with no date and language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials, using controlled terms related to bracket slots. After the selection and removal of duplicate articles, the risk of bias was assessed, and the data from the included studies were extracted by two independent researchers. Results: The search yielded 2640 studies. After applying the eligibility criteria, eight articles were fully read and four studies were selected for the qualitative systematic review. No randomized clinical trials assessed the duration of treatment in patients treated with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slots. Due to heterogeneity of the data available, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Conclusions: While most studies indicated a shorter duration of treatment in patients with 0.018-inch bracket slots, no available data confirmed the higher efficiency of one system over the other. The biases in the studies did not allow for a reliable conclusion; therefore, new studies with a better methodologic design are needed.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Cardiac Contractility Modulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Cardiovascular Therapeutics ◽

10.1155/2019/9769724 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2019 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ramy Mando ◽

Akshay Goel ◽

Fuad Habash ◽

Marwan Saad ◽

Karam Ayoub ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cardiac Contractility ◽

Mortality Data ◽

Cardiac Contractility Modulation ◽

All Cause Mortality

Background. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device therapy for systolic heart failure (HF) in patients with narrow QRS. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of CCM therapy. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between January 2001 and June 2018. Outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), HF hospitalizations, cardiac arrhythmias, pacemaker/ICD malfunctioning, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR). Results. Four RCTs including 801 patients (CCM n = 394) were available for analysis. The mean age was 59.63 ± 0.84 years, mean ejection fraction was 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration was 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. Mean follow-up duration was six months. CCM was associated with improved MLWHFQ (SMD -0.69, p = 0.0008). There were no differences in HF hospitalizations (OR 0.76, p = 0.12), 6MWD (SMD 0.67, p = 0.10), arrhythmias (OR 1.40, p = 0.14), pacemaker/ICD malfunction/sensing defect (OR 2.23, p = 0.06), all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.73, p = 0.33), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, p = 0.92) between the CCM and non-CCM groups. Conclusions. Short-term treatment with CCM may improve MLFHQ without significant difference in 6MWD, arrhythmic events, HF hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. There is a trend towards increased pacemaker/ICD device malfunction. Larger RCTs might be needed to determine if the CCM therapy will be beneficial with longer follow-up.

Download Full-text

Preparation Methods and Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intra-articular Hip Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/2325967120960414 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. 232596712096041

Author(s):

Flávio Luís Garcia ◽

Brady T. Williams ◽

Evan M. Polce ◽

Daniel B. Heller ◽

Zachary S. Aman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Preparation Methods ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Despite its increasing use in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, questions remain regarding the preparation methods of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its clinical applications for intra-articular hip disorders, including femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral pathology, and osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To systematically review and assess the preparation methods and clinical outcomes from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic review in accordance with the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in September 2019. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Embase were queried for studies regarding the use of PRP to treat intra-articular hip disorders. Qualifying articles were English-language RCTs describing the use of PRP for intra-articular hip disorders, either as standalone treatment or surgical augmentation. Two authors independently assessed article eligibility. Data pertaining to patient characteristics, indication for treatment, PRP preparation method, follow-up period, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Study results were qualitatively reported and quantitatively compared using meta-analysis when appropriate. Results: Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Four studies described the use of PRP for hip OA and 3 utilized PRP at arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears. Outcomes after PRP for OA demonstrated improvement in validated patient-reported outcome measures for up to 1 year; however, pooled effect sizes found no statistically significant difference between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) regarding pain visual analog scale scores at short-term (≤2 months; P = .27), midterm (4-6 months; P = .85), or long-term (1 year; P = .42) follow-up. When injected at arthroscopy, 1 study reported improved outcomes, 1 reported no difference in outcomes, and 1 reported worse outcomes compared with controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between PRP and control cohorts at a minimum 1-year follow-up. There were considerable deficiencies and heterogeneity in the reporting of PRP preparation methods for both indications. Conclusion: Treatment of OA with PRP demonstrated reductions in pain and improved patient-reported outcomes for up to 1 year. However, there was no statistically significant difference between PRP and HA in pain reduction. Likewise, for FAIS and labral surgery there was no statistically significant difference in mHHS outcomes between patients treated with PRP and controls. Given the limited number of studies and variability in PRP preparations, additional high-quality randomized trials are warranted.

Download Full-text