Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a polysaccharide common to most species and is found in many sites in the human body, including the skin and soft tissue. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was performed to identify randomized controlled trials, evaluating the use of HA derivatives in healing burns, epithelial surgical, and chronic wounds. Nine studies were identified, which met the search criteria and clinical endpoints of complete healing and percent wound size reduction when using HA vs. either an active or passive comparator. It was found in the vast majority of randomized controlled trials (eight of nine) that HA derivatives significantly improved the healing of wounds vs. traditional therapies or placebo (either via complete healing or a significant reduction in wound size) occurring from burns, venous insufficiency, diabetes, neuropathic insufficiency, and surgical removal of the epithelial layer (for tattoo removal). In the other remaining trial, one formulation of HA was compared with another, with the higher concentration showing improved application characteristics. Further, it was found in a meta-analysis in subsets of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (neuropathic) that HA derivatives healed these types of wounds significantly faster than standard of care. These studies in aggregate show that HA derivatives accelerate the healing process in burns, epithelial surgical wounds, and chronic wounds.

Based on CEBM and GRADE assessments, there is a lack of high-quality data supporting the use of low-acuity SBRs throughout the entire hospital. Furthermore, it is recommended that more research be conducted on the effect of SBRs, so higher quality evidence is developed.

This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of scalp cooling to prevent alopecia in patients with solid tumors undergoing chemotherapy.

ObjectiveRepetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) commonly is used for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) after patients have failed to benefit from trials of multiple antidepressant medications. No analysis to date has examined the cost-effectiveness of rTMS used earlier in the course of treatment and over a patients’ lifetime.MethodsWe used lifetime Markov simulation modeling to compare the direct costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of rTMS and medication therapy in patients with newly diagnosed MDD (ages 20–59) who had failed to benefit from one pharmacotherapy trial. Patients’ life expectancies, rates of response and remission, and quality of life outcomes were derived from the literature, and treatment costs were based upon published Medicare reimbursement data. Baseline costs, aggregate per year quality of life assessments (QALYs), Monte Carlo simulation, tornado analysis, assessment of dominance, and one way sensitivity analysis were also performed. The discount rate applied was 3%.ResultsLifetime direct treatment costs, and QALYs identified rTMS as the dominant therapy compared to antidepressant medications (i.e., lower costs with better outcomes) in all age ranges, with costs/improved QALYs ranging from $2,952/0.32 (older patients) to $11,140/0.43 (younger patients). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the model was most sensitive to the input variables of cost per rTMS session, monthly prescription drug cost, and the number of rTMS sessions per year.ConclusionrTMS was identified as the dominant therapy compared to antidepressant medication trials over the life of the patient across the lifespan of adults with MDD, given current costs of treatment. These models support the use of rTMS after a single failed antidepressant medication trial versus further attempts at medication treatment in adults with MDD.

BackgroundIt is unclear whether there is a clinical benefit to adding hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings to total knee implants, especially with the tibial component, where failure of the implant more often occurs. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all prospective randomized trials for determining whether the overall clinical results (as a function of durability, function, and adverse events) favored HA-coated tibial components.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed for the years 1990 to September 16, 2010. We restricted our search to randomized controlled trials involving participants receiving either an HA-coated tibia or other forms of tibial fixation. The primary outcome measures evaluated were durability, function, and acute adverse events.ResultsData from 926 evaluable primary total knee implants in 14 studies were analyzed. Using an RSA definition for durability, HA-coated tibial components (porous or press-fit) without screw fixation were less likely to be unstable at 2 years than porous and cemented metal-backed tibial components (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34–0.98; p = 0.04, I2 = 39%, M-H random effects model). There was no significant difference in durability, as measured from revision and evaluated at 2 and 8–10 years, between groups. Also, functional status using different validated measures showed no significant difference at 2 and 5 years, no matter what measure was used. Lastly, there was no significant difference in adverse events. Limitations included small numbers of evaluable patients (≤ 50) in 7 of the 14 trials identified, and a lack of “hard” evidence of durability with need for replacement (i.e. frank failure, pain, or loss of functionality).InterpretationIn patients > 65 years of age, an HA-coated tibial implant may provide better durability than other forms of tibial fixation. Larger trials should be undertaken comparing the long-term durability, function, and adverse events of HA-coated implants with those of other porous-coated tibial implants in younger, more active OA patients.