METHODS: A comprehensive search was done on 3 databases, namely PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, to identify original cost-of-illness studies that only evaluate the economic burden of AD up to August 2022. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 criteria. Cost articles without specifying etiology of AD or those in non-English were excluded.
RESULTS: Twelve of 5536 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total annual cost of AD per capita ranged from US $468.28 in mild AD to US $171 283.80 in severe AD. The cost of care raised nonlinearly with disease severity. Indirect caregiving cost represented the main contributor to societal cost in community-dwelling patients. When special caregiving accommodation was opted in daily care, it results in cost shifting from indirect cost to direct nonmedical cost. Formal caregiving accommodation caused increase in direct cost up to 67.3% of overall economic burden of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS: AD exerts a huge economic burden on patients and caregivers. Overall rise of each cost component could be anticipated with disease deterioration. Choice of special caregiving accommodation could reduce caregiver's productivity loss but increase the direct nonmedical expenditure of the disease from societal perspective.
METHODS: Medial femoral condyle defect was created in both knees of twenty-four mature New Zealand white rabbits, and the animals were divided into four groups containing six animals each. After 3 weeks, the right knees were transplanted with PVA-chitosan-MSC, PVA-chitosan scaffold alone, alginate-MSC construct or alginate alone. The left knee was kept as untreated control. Animals were killed at the end of 6 months after transplantation, and the cartilage repair was assessed through Brittberg morphological score, histological grading by O'Driscoll score and quantitative glycosaminoglycan analysis.
RESULTS: Morphological and histological analyses showed significant (p < 0.05) tissue repair when treated with PVA-chitosan-MSC or alginate MSC as compared to the scaffold only and untreated control. In addition, safranin O staining and the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in MSC treatment groups than in scaffold-only or untreated control group. No significant difference was observed between the PVA-chitosan-MSC- and alginate-MSC-treated groups.
CONCLUSION: PVA-chitosan hydrogel seeded with mesenchymal stem cells provides comparable treatment outcomes to that of previously established alginate-MSC construct implantation. This study supports the potential use of PVA-chitosan hydrogel seeded with MSCs for clinical use in cartilage repair such as traumatic injuries.