Background This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection compared with hyaluronic acid (HA) injection for patients undergoing knee osteoarthritis. Methods We systematically searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on January 23, 2020 to identify relevant studies issued in English languages. The outcomes evaluating the efficacy of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (WOMAC pain, function, stiffness, and total scores) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lequesne Index score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, EQ-VAS scores, and KOOS scores. The pooled data were analyzed by Stata 12.0. Results A total of 20 RCTs were enrolled in the present meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection reduced pain more effectively than hyaluronic acid (HA) injection at 6-month and 12-month follow-up evaluated by WOMAC pain scores and VAS scores. EQ-VAS in the patients treated with PRP injection was lower than that in patients with HA injection at 12 months. Moreover, the patients with PRP injection had a better function recovery than those with HA injection at 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up, as evaluated by WOMAC function scores. WOMAC total scores showed significant difference at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. The IKDC scores indicated PRP injection was significantly more effective than HA injection at 3 months and 6 months. However, the Lequesne Index scores, KOOS scores, and adverse events did not show any significant difference between groups. Conclusion Intra-articular PRP injection appeared to be more efficacious than HA injection for the treatment of KOA in terms of short-term functional recovery. Moreover, PRP injection was superior to HA injection in terms of long-term pain relief and function improvement. In addition, PRP injection did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to HA injection.

Background Osteoporosis (OP) is a bone disease characterized by reduced amount and quality of bone. This study was designed to explore the role and mechanism of lncRNA IGF2‐AS in the osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs). Methods Human lncRNA and miRNA microarray analyses were performed to measure the differential expression levels of lncRNAs and miRNAs in undifferentiated and osteogenically differentiated BMSCs. lncRNA IGF2‐AS, miR‐3,126‐5p, and KLK4 levels were measured by real‐time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR). Osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs was assessed by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining and Alizarin Red staining (ARS). Protein levels of osterix (Osx), osteocalcin (OCN), and runt‐related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) were examined by RT‐PCR and western blot assays. The binding relationship between miR‐3,126‐5p and lncRNA IGF2‐AS or KLK4 was predicted by TargetScan (http://www.targetscan.org/vert_72/) and then verified with a dual‐luciferase reporter assay. Results lncRNA IGF2‐AS and KLK4 were highly expressed and miR‐3,126‐5p was weakly expressed in osteogenically differentiated BMSCs. Moreover, lncRNA IGF2‐AS overexpression enhanced the osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. In contrast, lncRNA IGF2‐AS knockdown showed the opposite trend. Moreover, miR‐3,126‐5p overexpression abolished the lncRNA IGF2‐AS‐mediated osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. lncRNA IGF2‐AS functions as a sponge of miR‐3,126‐5p to regulate KLK4 expression. Conclusion lncRNA IGF2‐AS enhances the osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs by modulating the miR‐3,126‐5p/KLK4 axis, suggesting a promising therapeutic target for bone‐related diseases.

BackgroundsThis meta‐analysis aimed to assess antipsychotic and placebo effects in patients with schizophrenia at the level of symptom factors.MethodsA systematic literature search up to June 2020 was undertaken and 62 studies were included, with 23,478 patients with schizophrenia at the study baseline point. We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The comparison was made according to the study content using a continuous method with a random‐effects model.ResultsPatients with schizophrenia treated by antipsychotic drugs had a significantly lower psychiatric rating scale total score; lower clinical global impression of severity; lower positive and negative syndrome scale; and lower assessment of negative symptoms total score, when compared to placebo treated patients.ConclusionsPatients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic drug show a much greater improvement and lower inconsistency in the level of symptom factors when compared to the effects of placebo. Our findings evidence for a comparatively homogeneous outcome of the antipsychotic‐treatment in improving schizophrenia symptoms. This opposes the notion of the presence of patient sub‐groups with treatment non‐responsive schizophrenia.