METHODS: A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, using the format for Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation. Prior to the review, the protocol was registered in the systematic review register, PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42021272169). Outcome measures included ulceration, histopathological scores, inflammatory mediators, microbial growth, and pain. Study quality was analysed by SYRCLE risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS: Only one study met the inclusion criteria, documenting reduction in ulceration, inflammatory, and oxidative biomarkers. Exposure to AuNPs prevented inflammatory response induced by 5-fluorouracil in oral mucosa of hamsters. However, a high risk of bias necessitates further research.
CONCLUSION: This review identifies a potential therapeutic strategy for prevention and management of oral mucositis. It also provides future direction for gold nanoparticle research in oral mucositis; however, there is lack of sufficient evidence to derive any conclusion. Research with standardized parameters including nanoparticle size, capping agent, surface charge, and appropriate oral mucositis animal models will establish risk-benefit balance and margin of safety for therapeutic use of gold nanoparticles for oral mucositis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 3 databases (Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus) was performed to identify randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of RAU interventions published until December 2022. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted on 4 outcomes: reduction in pain, duration of ulceration, the diameter of ulceration, and area of ulceration. The interventions are then arranged using the surface area under cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 38 trials involving 2773 patients were included were included in quantitative synthesis by NMA. Our analysis showed that Diode laser [MD, -4.865 ± 1.951 (95%CI = (-8.690, -1.041)] was the most effective in reducing the pain score followed by Amlexanox [MD, -2.673 ± 1.075 (95%CI = -4.779, -0.566)]. Iralvex performed the best in reducing the duration of ulceration [MD, -6.481 ± 1.841 (95%CI = -10.090, -2.872)]. Diode laser, acacia nilotica with licorice formulation, and amlexanox were the most effective interventions for reduction of ulcer diameter. Majority of the trials reported absence of any adverse effects and those reported were mild.
CONCLUSION: Our NMA has identified several interventions to be more effective than a placebo. Laser therapy may be an option for promoting pain management, however, most have only been tested in 1 or 2 trials. Further studies with rigorous methodology on larger samples are recommended to strengthen the current evidence.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin C versus comparative interventions in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis of eleven trials using a random-effects model revealed significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality with the administration of vitamin C among patients with COVID-19 relative to no vitamin C (pooled odds ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.92). Subgroup analysis of studies that included patients with severe COVID-19 also produced findings of significant mortality reduction with the administration of vitamin C relative to no vitamin C (pooled odds ratio = 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.84).
CONCLUSION: Overall, evidence from RCTs suggests a survival benefit for vitamin C in patients with severe COVID-19. However, we should await data from large-scale randomized trials to affirm its mortality benefits.
METHODS: A panel comprising cardiologists from China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand convened to share insights and provide guidance for the optimal management of iron deficiency in patients with HF, tailored for the Asian community.
RESULTS: Expert opinions were provided for the screening, diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of iron deficiency in patients with HF. It was recommended that all patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction should be screened for iron deficiency, and iron-deficient patients should be treated with intravenous iron. Monitoring of iron levels in patients with HF should be carried out once or twice yearly. Barriers to the management of iron deficiency in patients with HF in the region include low awareness of iron deficiency amongst general physicians, lack of reimbursement for screening and treatment, and lack of proper facilities for administration of intravenous iron.
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide a structured approach to the management of iron deficiency in patients with HF in Asia.
METHODS: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) updated the guideline, which included reviewing and grading new evidence that was identified and summarized. As in the previous guideline, the WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of recommendations and used expert judgment to develop recommendations. New evidence led to updating of recommendations in the chapters on treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with CKD (Chapter 2), management of HCV infection before and after kidney transplant (Chapter 4), and diagnosis and management of kidney disease associated with HCV infection (Chapter 5). Recommendations in chapters on detection and evaluation of hepatitis C in CKD (Chapter 1) and prevention of HCV transmission in hemodialysis units (Chapter 3) were not updated because of an absence of significant new evidence.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2022 updated guideline includes 43 graded recommendations and 20 ungraded recommendations, 7 of which are new or modified on the basis of the most recent evidence and consensus among the WG members. The updated guidelines recommend expanding treatment of hepatitis C with sofosbuvir-based regimens to patients with CKD glomerular filtration rate categories G4 and G5, including those receiving dialysis; expanding the donor pool for kidney transplant recipients by accepting HCV-positive kidneys regardless of the recipient's HCV status; and initiating direct-acting antiviral treatment of HCV-infected patients with clinical evidence of glomerulonephritis without requiring kidney biopsy. The update also addresses the use of immunosuppressive regimens in such patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with moderate to severe TBI treated with Sterofundin (SF) versus NS.
DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with TBI was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre from February 2017 to November 2019.
INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NS or SF. The study fluids were administered for 72 h as continuous infusions or boluses. Participants, investigators, and staff were blinded to the fluid type.
OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the analysis, with 38 in the NS group and 32 in the SF group. The in-hospital mortality rate were 3 (7.9%) in the NS group vs. 4 (12.5%) in the SF group, RR = 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64 to 2.59; p = 0.695). No patients developed AKI and required renal replacement therapy. ICP on day 3 was significantly higher in the SF group (18.60 ± 9.26) compared to 12.77 ± 3.63 in the NS group, (95% CI, -11.46 to 0.20; p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in 3-day biochemical parameters and cerebral perfusion pressure, ventilator-free days, length of ICU stay, or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score at 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe TBI, the use of SF was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality, development of AKI, or improved 6-month GOS-E when compared to NS.
METHODS: We reviewed the literature on prophylaxis in haemophilia since its inception in the 1950s to the present, the development of more and less intense factor prophylaxis regimens and their outcomes and additionally the published outcomes of prophylaxis with low dose emicizumab.
RESULTS: What these experiences collectively show is that low dose emicizumab does result in significant benefits to patients whilst being much less expensive than a "one size fits all" emicizumab prophylaxis approach. We also took note that some non-factor therapies still in development are individualized given that high doses of these can potentially put patients at risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis is now clearly accepted as standard of care for PWH with a severe phenotype but now in a very short time a large assortment of different treatment options for prophylaxis have become/are becoming available and the haemophilia community will need to determine how to best use these recognizing that no 'one treatment fits all'.