Álvarez-Villalobos, Neri A

Background: Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, no consensus has been established regarding the number of injections required to observe a therapeutic effect. Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of single versus multiple PRP injections in the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted for RCTs published between 1970 and 2019 that compared the effect of single versus multiple PRP injections on pain and functionality in patients with knee OA. Searched databases included MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A data extraction form was designed to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcomes of interest data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes. Results: We included 5 clinical trials with a low-moderate risk of bias that reported data for 301 patients. Meta-analysis showed that, at 6 months after the intervention, single and multiple (double or triple) injections had similar pain improvement, with no significant differences (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.61 [95% CI, −1.09 to 2.31]; I 2 = 97%; P = .48). A significant improvement in knee functionality was observed in favor of multiple injections (SMD, 2.29 [95% CI, 0.45-4.12]; I 2 = 97%; P = .01). Subanalysis showed that the significant improvement was only evident for the results of single versus triple injections (SMD, 3.12 [95% CI, 0.64-5.60]; I 2 = 97%; P = .01). Conclusion: According to our results, a single injection was as effective as multiple PRP injections in pain improvement; however, multiple injections seemed more effective in joint functionality than a single injection at 6 months. We consider that the available evidence is still insufficient, and future research on this specific topic is needed to confirm our results.

Abstract Background The efficacy of lipid-lowering agents on patient-important outcomes in older individuals is unclear. Methods We included randomized trials that enrolled individuals aged 65 years or older and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. Pairs of reviewers selected and appraised the trials. Results We included 23 trials that enrolled 60,194 elderly patients. For primary prevention, statins reduced the risk of coronary artery disease [CAD; relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.91] and myocardial infarction (MI; RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.66) but not all-cause or cardiovascular mortality or stroke. These effects were imprecise in patients with diabetes, but there was no significant interaction between diabetes status and the intervention effect. For secondary prevention, statins reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.79), CAD (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77), MI (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.79), and revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.77). Intensive (vs less-intensive) statin therapy reduced the risk of CAD and heart failure. Niacin did not reduce the risk of revascularization, and fibrates did not reduce the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or CAD. Conclusion High-certainty evidence supports statin use for secondary prevention in older individuals. Evidence for primary prevention is less certain. Data in older individuals with diabetes are limited; however, no empirical evidence has shown a significant difference based on diabetes status.

Background. This systematic review was commissioned to identify new variables associated with transplant outcomes that are not currently collected by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Methods. We identified 81 unique studies including 1 193 410 patients with median follow-up of 36 months posttransplant, reporting 108 unique risk factors. Results. Most risk factors (104) were recipient related; few (4) were donor related. Most risk factors were judged to be practical and feasible to routinely collect. Relative association measures were small to moderate for most risk factors (ranging between 1.0 and 2.0). The strongest relative association measure for a heart transplant outcome with a risk factor was 8.6 (recipient with the previous Fontan operation), for a kidney transplant 2.8 (sickle cell nephropathy as primary cause of end-stage renal disease), for a liver transplant 14.3 (recipient serum ferritin >500 µg/L), and for a lung transplant 6.3 (Burkholderia cepacia complex infection for 1 y or less). OPTN may consider some of these 108 variables for future collection to enhance transplant research and clinical care. Conclusions. Evidence-based approaches can be used to determine variables collected in databases and registries. Several candidate variables have been identified for OPTN.

Introduction Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a relatively new drug-class of glucose-lowering medications. Several trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated their beneficial effect on some macrovascular outcomes. Their effect on microvascular outcomes has been reported as positive in several trials, however, their effect remains uncertain. Therefore, we report the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors regarding patient-important and surrogate microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods and analysis A comprehensive search will be conducted to find eligible articles from each database’s earliest inception to November 2017. These databases will include Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We will search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors with any other active treatment or placebo assessing microvascular outcomes in either their primary or secondary outcomes. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate will review all abstracts, and full-text manuscripts for eligibility, and will systematically extract the data and will assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Random-effects models will also be used. Ethics and dissemination The results of the systematic review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal regardless of outcome and will be presented at relevant conferences. The data we will use do not include individual patient data, so ethical approval is not required PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076460.