Autologous blood or autologous serum acupoint injection therapy for psoriasis vulgaris: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Autologous Serum for the Treatment of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of autologous human serum as an adjuvant agent in pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for macular holes (MH). Thus, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to August 20th, 2023. The inclusion criteria targeted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs that compared the use of autologous serum in vitrectomy for MH with the same procedure without the serum. The outcomes were MH closure rates and postoperative complications such as retinal detachment and cataracts. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Review Manager 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used for statistical analysis. Four studies, comprising two RCTs and two non-randomized cohort studies with 373 eyes of 372 patients, were included. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in MH closure rates (OR 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 to 3.43; P=0.62) and no difference concerning the incidence of adverse events (OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.30-3.09; P=0.96). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis excluding the study by Lauritzen et al. revealed a significant difference in anatomical closure, favoring the serum arm, and demonstrated a reduction in the level of heterogeneity. Our meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between groups in the pooled analysis of all studies. However, considering the quality assessment of one of the included studies, and observing the divergent result in sensitivity analysis following its exclusion, there are indications that might suggest the superiority of the serum in terms of the analyzed endpoints. This finding highlights the existing research gaps and the imperative need for additional high-quality randomized trials to further investigate this treatment.

Efficacy of acupoint stimulation as a treatment for uremic pruritus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Uremic pruritus causes sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and increased morbidity in patients with chronic kidney disease. Acupuncture has been shown to improve uremic pruritus. There is limited evidence of the efficacy of traditional Chinese therapies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of acupoint stimulation therapy in patients with uremic pruritus.

METHODS

A systematic search of seven databases (up to Sep 2022) was conducted for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy of acupuncture, acupressure, auricular acupressure, acupoint injection, acupoint thermal therapy, acupoint sticking therapy, or transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation in the treatment of patients with uremic pruritus. Two reviewers selected eligible articles for inclusion in the meta-analysis and evaluated the risk of bias via Cochrane Collaboration. The results of pruritus assessments and uremic pruritus-related laboratory parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty trials published between 2002 and 2022, including a total of 2,735 participants, were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The effective rates for acupuncture, auricular acupressure, and the combination of acupoint injection and acupoint massage were significantly greater in patients with uremic pruritus compared to the control group. The levels of serum BUN, PTH, and histamine levels were significantly lower vs. control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture, auricular acupressure, and the combination of acupoint injection and acupoint massage seem to be effective in improving uremic pruritus in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, further investigation of these potential treatments is now warranted in larger patient populations and over a longer time frame.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022354585, identifier: PROSPERO CRD42022354585.

Efficacy and safety of biological agents for the treatment of pediatric patients with psoriasis: A bayesian analysis of six high-quality randomized controlled trials

Background

Biological agents have been used with extreme caution in children because of their possible adverse effects.

Objectives

This study used high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide high-level evidence to assess the effectiveness and safety of biological agents for treating children with psoriasis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases through October 31, 2021. We included trials reporting at least one adverse event after treatment with biological agents of patients less than 18-year-old diagnosed with psoriasis. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software were used for meta and Bayesian analyses.

Results

Six trials with 864 participants were included in the analysis. The results showed a 2.37-fold higher response rate in all biologics groups than in the control group for psoriasis area and severity index 75 (PASI75) (RR= 2.37, P-value < 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.22, 4.62]). Compared with placebo, the PASI75 response rates of etanercept (RR= 2.82, 95% [CI] [1.10, 7.21]), ustekinumab low dose (RR= 7.45, 95%[CI] [1.25, 44.58]), and ustekinumab high dose (RR= 7.25, 95%[CI] [1.21, 43.41]) were superior. Additionally, the incidence of total adverse reactions was 1.05 times higher for biologics than for controls, indicating a good safety profile (RR= 1.05, P-value = 0.53, 95%[CI] [0.92, 1.19]). Overall, these six high-quality randomized controlled trials suggest that biologics are effective and safe for pediatric patients with psoriasis.

Limitations

Inclusion of few relevant, high-quality RCTs.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that biologics can be used to treat children with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without the risk of adverse effects. Ustekinumab showed the best efficacy and the fewest adverse effects.