-
American Journal of Obstetrics and... May 2023Given that many studies report on a limited spectrum of adverse events of transvaginal cervical cerclage for preventing preterm birth, but are not powered to draw... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Given that many studies report on a limited spectrum of adverse events of transvaginal cervical cerclage for preventing preterm birth, but are not powered to draw conclusions about its safety, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review with pooled risk analyses of perioperative complications and compare characteristics on the basis of indication for cerclage in singleton pregnancies.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the prospective trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from inception to April 2020.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All randomized controlled trials and both retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies reporting about complications in history-indicated cerclage, ultrasound-indicated cerclage, or physical examination-indicated cerclage were eligible. Studies were included if they contained original data on the occurrence of adverse events during surgery or within 24 hours after surgery.
METHODS
The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and case-control studies were used for the critical appraisal. The pooled risk assessment was conducted using meta and metafor packages in R (studio), version 4.0.3.
RESULTS
The search yielded 2328 potential studies; 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 prospective, and 38 retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. Of the 4511 women with singleton gestations, 1561 (34.6%) underwent history-indicated cerclage, 1348 (29.9%) underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage, and 1549 (33.3%) underwent physical examination-indicated cerclage. Most perioperative complications occurred in physical examination-indicated cerclage, especially hemorrhage (2.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-7.6) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (2.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-4.5). The fewest complications occurred in history-indicated cerclage, varying from 0.0% of preterm premature rupture of membranes (95% confidence interval, 0.0-1.7) to 0.9% of hemorrhage (95% confidence interval, 0.0-7.9). In ultrasound-indicated cerclage, the most common complication was hemorrhage (1.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-4.1), followed by lacerations (0.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.1) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (0.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.8).
CONCLUSION
The highest risk of perioperative complications was observed in physical examination-indicated cerclage in comparison with ultrasound- and history-indicated cerclage. However, the occurrence of complications is poorly documented in the published literature, as is the timing of the complications (ie, perioperative or later in pregnancy). There is an urgent need for uniform complication reporting policy in both cohort studies and randomized controlled trials on cerclage.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Cerclage, Cervical; Premature Birth; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Cervix Uteri; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36441090
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.026 -
Journal of Tissue Engineering and... Dec 2022Amniotic membrane (AM) has great potential as a scaffold for tissue regeneration in reconstructive surgery. To date, no systematic review of the literature has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Amniotic membrane (AM) has great potential as a scaffold for tissue regeneration in reconstructive surgery. To date, no systematic review of the literature has been performed for the applications of AM in wound closure of internal organs. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarize the literature on the safety and efficacy of AM for the closure of internal organs. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE-PubMed database and OVID Embase to retrieve human and controlled animal studies on wound closure of internal organs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized clinical trials and the SYRCLE risk of bias tool for animal studies were used. Meta-analyses (MAs) were conducted for controlled animal studies to assess efficacy of closure, mortality and complications in subjects who underwent surgical wound closure in internal organs with the application of AM. Sixty references containing 26 human experiments and 36 animal experiments were included. The MAs of the controlled animal studies showed comparable results with regard to closure, mortality and complications, and suggested improved mechanical strength and lower inflammation scores after AM application when compared to standard surgical closure techniques. This systematic review and MAs demonstrate that the application of AM to promote wound healing of internal organs appears to be safe, efficacious, and feasible.
Topics: Humans; Amnion; Wound Healing; Wound Closure Techniques; Plastic Surgery Procedures
PubMed: 36333859
DOI: 10.1002/term.3357 -
International Journal of Spine Surgery Feb 2023Amniotic membrane tissue has been thought to potentiate healing in many soft tissue conditions. Specifically, recent studies have shown its therapeutic potential for...
BACKGROUND
Amniotic membrane tissue has been thought to potentiate healing in many soft tissue conditions. Specifically, recent studies have shown its therapeutic potential for treatment in the setting of spinal pathologies. The purpose of this study is to thoroughly review the existing scientific literature and evidence concerning the clinical use of amniotic membrane-derived biologic agents on postoperative outcomes following spinal surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to December 2020 to identify animal and clinical studies examining the therapeutic potential for amniotic membrane tissue in the setting of spinal pathologies (including disc herniation, prevention of epidural fibrosis, and spinal fusion). Studies were broken down into 2 categories: experimental model type and the type of amnion product being analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies (4 clinical studies and 8 studies utilizing animal models) met inclusion criteria. Additionally, the major types of amnion product were divided into cryopreserved/freeze-dried amniotic membrane, human amniotic fluid, human amniotic membrane, cross-linked amniotic membrane, and amnion-derived epithelial cells. While heterogeneity of study design precludes definitive specific results reporting, most studies showed positive benefits on healing/outcomes with amniotic augmentation. Specifically, amnion products have shown promising effects in reducing epidural adhesions and scar tissue after spine surgery, improving spinal fusion rate and postoperative pain scores, and promoting better functional outcomes after spine surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of the limited number of reported studies revealed a wide variety of amniotic membrane preparations, treatment regimens, and indications, which limit definitive conclusions. To date, while there is no definitive clinical proof that amniotic tissues enhance tissue repair or regeneration, the aggregate results demonstrate promising basic science and outcomes potential in spinal surgery. Further study is warranted to determine whether this application is appropriate in the clinical setting.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
This systematic review provides a summary of the existing literature regarding the use of amniotic membrane preparations, treatment regimens, and indications within spinal surgery. With the growing popularity and utilization of biologic agents such as amniotic membrane-derived products in orthopedic and neurologic surgery, this systematic review gives physicians a concise summary on the outcomes and indications associated with amniotic membrane products.
PubMed: 36253081
DOI: 10.14444/8380 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Dec 2022To ascertain maternal and perinatal outcomes of monochorionic twin pregnancies complicated by twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) treated with the Solomon technique... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Solomon technique vs selective fetoscopic laser photocoagulation for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and perinatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To ascertain maternal and perinatal outcomes of monochorionic twin pregnancies complicated by twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) treated with the Solomon technique compared with selective fetoscopic laser photocoagulation (SFLP) of placental anastomoses.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. The outcomes observed were perinatal loss and survival, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), preterm birth (PTB), gestational age (GA) at delivery, interval between laser treatment and delivery, maternal bleeding, septostomy or chorioamniotic separation, placental abruption, twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS), recurrence of TTTS, neonatal morbidity and neurological morbidity. Random-effects head-to-head meta-analyses were used to analyze the data. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) and their 95% CIs were calculated.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included in the systematic review. There was generally no difference in the main maternal and pregnancy characteristics between pregnancies treated using the Solomon technique and those treated using SFLP of placental anastomoses. The risks of fetal loss (pooled OR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.95); P = 0.023), neonatal death (pooled OR, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16-0.84); P = 0.018) and perinatal loss (pooled OR, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.38-0.83); P = 0.004) were significantly lower in pregnancies treated using the Solomon technique than in those treated with SFLP. Likewise, pregnancies treated using the Solomon technique had a significantly higher chance of survival of at least one twin (pooled OR, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.03-5.19); P = 0.004) and double survival (pooled OR, 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.70); P = 0.001). There was no difference in the risk of PPROM (P = 0.603), PPROM within 10 days from laser surgery (P = 0.982), PTB (P = 0.207), maternal bleeding (P = 0.219), septostomy or chorioamniotic separation (P = 0.224) or chorioamnionitis (P = 0.135) between the two groups, while the risk of placental abruption was higher in pregnancies treated using the Solomon technique (pooled OR, 2.90 (95% CI, 1.55-5.44); P = 0.001). In the Solomon technique group, pregnancies delivered at a significantly earlier GA than did those treated with SFLP (pooled MD, -0.625 weeks (95% CI, -0.90 to -0.35 weeks); P < 0.001), while there was no difference in the interval between laser treatment and delivery (P = 0.589). The rate of recurrence of TTTS was significantly lower in pregnancies undergoing the Solomon technique (pooled OR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22-0.81); P < 0.001), while there was no difference in the risk of TAPS between the two groups (P = 0.792). Finally, there was no difference in the overall risk of neonatal morbidity (P = 0.382) or neurological morbidity (P = 0.247) between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Monochorionic twin pregnancies complicated by TTTS undergoing laser treatment using the Solomon technique had a significantly higher survival rate and lower recurrence rate of TTTS but were associated with an increased risk of placental abruption and earlier GA at delivery compared to those treated with SFLP. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Abruptio Placentae; Anemia; Fetofetal Transfusion; Fetoscopy; Gestational Age; Laser Coagulation; Laser Therapy; Lasers; Placenta; Polycythemia; Pregnancy, Twin; Premature Birth
PubMed: 36240516
DOI: 10.1002/uog.26095 -
JAMA Pediatrics Oct 2022The risk and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy are under investigation. Pooled evidence regarding neonatal and maternal outcomes in association with...
IMPORTANCE
The risk and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy are under investigation. Pooled evidence regarding neonatal and maternal outcomes in association with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is scarce.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and peripartum outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched on April 5, 2022. Language restrictions were not applied.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective trials and observational studies comparing the individuals who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy with those who did not and reporting the neonatal outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low Apgar score, neonatal intensive care units (NICU) admission, and intrauterine fetal death (IFD).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent investigators extracted relevant data from each study. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were the neonatal outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low Apgar score, NICU admission, and IFD. The secondary outcomes were maternal outcomes, including maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and chorioamnionitis.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies involving 81 349 vaccinated (mean age, 32-35 years) and 255 346 unvaccinated individuals during pregnancy (mean age, 29.5-33 years) were included. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with lower risk of NICU admission (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97) and IFD (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94), whereas there was no statistically significant association with preterm birth (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76-1.04), small for gestational age (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04), and low Apgar score (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02). COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.93), whereas it was not associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20), postpartum hemorrhage (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07), and chorioamnionitis (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with an increase in the risk of peripartum outcomes, was associated with a decreased risk of NICU admission, IFD, and maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thus, COVID-19 vaccination should be encouraged for pregnant individuals.
PubMed: 36190704
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3456 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Sep 2022Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most serious diabetic complications. DFU is an open wound that usually occurs in the foot sole due to poor blood glucose control,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most serious diabetic complications. DFU is an open wound that usually occurs in the foot sole due to poor blood glucose control, peripheral neuropathy, and poor circulation. The human amniotic allograft membrane is a biological wound dressing derived from the amniotic membrane. It contains amino acids, nutrients, cytokines, and growth factors that make the growth process easier.
OBJECTIVE
To compare dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (DHACA) plus the standard of wound care (SOC) with the SOC alone.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science till April 2021 using relevant keywords. All search results were screened for eligibility. We extracted the data from the included trials and pooled them as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (ver. 5.4).
RESULTS
The pooled effect estimate from 11 RCTs showed that DHACA was superior to SOC regarding the complete wound healing in both 6th and 12th week (RR = 3.78; 95% CI: [2.51, 5.70]; P < 0.00001) and (RR = 2.00; 95% CI: [1.67, 2.39], P < 0.00001 respectively). Also, the analysis favored the DHACA regarding the mean time to heal in the 12th-week (MD = -12.07, 95%CI: [-19.23, -4.91], P = 0.001). The wound size reduction was better with DHACA (MD = 1.18, 95%CI: [-0,10, 2.26], P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION
Using DHACA with SOC is safer and more effective than using SOC alone for DFU patients.
Topics: Amnion; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36104736
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-022-00575-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular surface with delayed re-epithelialisation, stem cell failure, and conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) following an ocular surface burn is claimed to reduce pain and accelerate healing. The surgery involves securing a layer of amniotic membrane (AM) to the eyelid margins as a patch to cover the entire ocular surface. However, there is debate about the severity of an ocular burn that may benefit from AMT and uncertainty of whether AMT improves outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of AMT with medical therapy in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn, compared to medical therapy alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 September 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials that compared an AMT applied in the first seven days following an ocular surface burn in addition to medical therapy with medical therapy alone. The outcome measures were failure of re-epithelialisation by day 21 post injury, visual acuity at final follow-up, corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon, time to re-epithelialisation and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed the included studies for risk of bias and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We analysed two RCTs, but excluded individual patients who had been treated outside the acute phase in one of the studies (data provided by study authors). In total, 36 moderate burns from one RCT and 92 severe burns from two RCTs were evaluated separately. For both categories, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded principally as a result of high risks of performance and detection biases, and because of imprecision indicated by very wide confidence intervals. In addition, follow-up was insufficiently frequent to calculate time-to-epithelialisation precisely. Moderate severity ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification II-III) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 (0.02 to 1.31), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.32 lower (0.55 to 0.09 lower) in the treatment group (i.e. better), suggesting a possible benefit of AMT. The GRADE assessment for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (very wide confidence intervals including no effect). The GRADE assessment for visual acuity at final follow-up was downgraded to low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (optimal information size not met). The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.56; 0.21 to 1.48), symblepharon (RR 0.41; 0.02 to 9.48) and time-to-epithelialisation (13 days lower; 26.30 lower to 0.30 higher) suggest possible benefit of AMT, but the wide confidence intervals indicate that both harm and benefit are possible. GRADE assessments for these outcomes were once again downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision. Since adverse effects are rare, the small sample would have fewer occurrences of rare but potentially important adverse effects. The GRADE assessment for adverse effects was therefore considered to be low. Severe ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification IV) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 1.03 (0.94 to 1.12), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.01 higher (0.29 lower to 0.31 higher) in the treatment group (i.e, worse), indicating no benefit of AMT. GRADE assessments for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 and final outcomes were downgraded to low. The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.84; 0.66 to 1.06), symblepharon (RR 0.89; 0.56 to 1.42) and time-to-epithelialisation (1.66 days lower; 11.09 lower to 7.77 higher) may include both benefit and harm. GRADE assessments for corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon and time-to-epithelialisation were downgraded to low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For adverse effects, the GRADE assessment was downgraded to low, reflecting the small sample sizes in the RCTs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is uncertain evidence to support the treatment of moderate acute ocular surface burns with AMT in addition to standard medical therapy as a means of preventing failure of epithelialisation by day 21, improving visual outcome and reducing corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon formation and time-to-epithelialisation. For severe burns, the available evidence does not indicate any significant benefit of treatment with AMT.
Topics: Amnion; Corneal Neovascularization; Eye Burns; Humans; Visual Acuity; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36047788
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009379.pub3 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2021Ischemic cardiomyopathies are the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Stem cell therapy using amniotic membrane mesenchymal stem cells have emerged as a...
Ischemic cardiomyopathies are the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Stem cell therapy using amniotic membrane mesenchymal stem cells have emerged as a promising cardiac regeneration modality. They have shown great immunological advantage when used in allogeneic or xenogeneic transplantation. The aim of the current study is to accumulate evidence from published preclinical studies on the application of amniotic membrane derived mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs) in the treatment of ischemic cardiomyopathies including myocardial ischemia and heart failure. The aim is to define if there is enough high-quality current evidence to support starting the use of these cells in clinical trials. PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched without temporal and language restrictions. Data were extracted from selected studies. The primary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV fibrosis. The risk of bias (ROB) assessment was performed using SYRCLE's ROB tool. After qualitative synthesis, provided that data meets the criteria for quantitative analysis, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata software V12 to investigate the heterogeneity of the data and to get an overall estimate of the effect size of the treatment on each outcome. On primary search, 438 citations were retrieved. After screening, three studies were selected for quantitative analysis of each of the outcomes LVEF and LV fibrosis. Their administration in acute and chronic MI alleviates heart failure and improves LVEF (SMD=3.56, 95% CI: 2.24-4.87, I-squared=83.1%, p=0.003) and reduces infarct size (SMD= -4.41, 95% CI: (-5.68)-(-3.14), I-squared=79.0%, p=0.009). These observations were achieved in the acute MI model, HF following ischemia due to coronary artery stenosis and coronary artery occlusion with the early restoration of the perfusion. Present low and medium quality evidence from preclinical studies confirm the efficacy of the AMSCs in the preclinical models of acute MI and HF following ischemia due to coronary artery stenosis and permanent/temporary coronary artery occlusion. High-quality preclinical studies are indicated to bridge the gaps in translation of the current findings of AMSCs research for the treatment of patients with acute and chronic myocardial ischemia and heart failure.
PubMed: 36042827
DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.35.187 -
Cureus Jul 2022Diabetes is a leading chronic illness in the modern world and 19-34% develop chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in their lifetime, often necessitating amputation. The... (Review)
Review
Diabetes is a leading chronic illness in the modern world and 19-34% develop chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in their lifetime, often necessitating amputation. The reduction in tissue growth factors and resulting imbalance between proteolytic enzymes and their inhibitors, along with systemic factors impairing healing appear particularly important in chronic wounds. Growth factors applied topically have thus been suggested to be a non-invasive, safe, and cost-effective adjunct to improve wound healing and prevent complications. Comprehensive database searches of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were performed to identify clinical evidence and ongoing trials. The risk of bias analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of a topical biologic growth factor-containing regimen to any other regimen. Primary outcomes of interest were time to wound closure, healing rate, and time. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events such as infection. A total of 41 trials from 1992-2020 were included in this review, with a total recorded 3,112 patients. Platelet-derived growth factors (PDGF) in the form of becaplermin gel are likely to reduce the time of closure, increase the incidence of wound closure, and complete wound healing. Human umbilical cord-related treatments, dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (dHACA), and hypothermically stored amniotic membrane (HSAM), consistently increased the rates and incidence of complete ulcer healing while reducing ulcer size and time to complete ulcer healing. Fibroblast growth factor-1 (FGF1) showed only a slight benefit in multiple studies regarding increasing complete ulcer healing rates and incidence while reducing ulcer size and time to complete ulcer healing, with a few studies showing no statistical difference from placebo. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is consistent in reducing the time to complete ulcer healing and increasing wound healing rate but may not reduce ulcer size or increase the incidence of complete ulcer healing. Targeting the wound healing pathway via the extrinsic administration of growth factors is a promising option to augment wound healing in diabetic patients. Growth factors have also shown promise in specific subgroups of patients who are at risk of significantly impaired wound healing such as those with a history of secondary infection and vasculopathy. As diabetes impairs multiple stages of wound healing, combining growth factors in diabetic wound care may prove to be an area of interest. Evidence from this systematic literature review suggests that topical adjuncts probably reduce time to wound closure, reduce healing time, and increase the healing rate in patients with chronic DFUs.
PubMed: 36035037
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27180 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision. Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to small sample size and risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another. Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Chorioamnionitis; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Lung; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 35943347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4