METHODS: The index prescriptions were those that when the annual blood tests were reviewed. Prescriptions of medication were verified, compared to the preceding prescriptions and classified as 1) no change, 2) stepping up and 3) stepping down. The treatment targets were HbA1c
METHODS: The effective dose of Ecklonia cava phlorotannins (ECP) for hyperglycaemic wound healing was determined prior to phlorotannin nanofibre fabrication using polyvinyl-alcohol (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and ECP. Vapour glutaraldehyde was used for crosslinking of the PVA/PVP nanofibres. The phlorotannin nanofibres were characterised, and their safety and cytocompatibility were validated. Next, the wound healing effect of phlorotannin nanofibres was determined with 2D wound scratch assay, whereas immunofluorescence staining of Collagen-I (Col-I) and Cytokeratin-14 (CK-14) was performed in human dermal fibroblasts (HDF) and human epidermal keratinocytes (HEK), respectively.
RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that 0.01 μg/mL ECP significantly improved hyperglycaemic wound healing without compromising cell viability and proliferation. Among all nanofibres, PVA/PVP/0.01 wt% ECP nanofibres exhibited the best hyperglycaemic wound healing effect. They displayed a diameter of 334.7 ± 10.1 nm, a porosity of 40.7 ± 3.3%, and a WVTR of 1718.1 ± 32.3 g/m2/day. Besides, the FTIR spectra and phlorotannin release profile validated the successful vapour glutaraldehyde crosslinking and ECP incorporation. We also demonstrated the potential of phlorotannin nanofibres as a non-cytotoxic wound dressing as they support the viability and proliferation of both HDF and HEK. Furthermore, phlorotannin nanofibres significantly ameliorated the impaired hyperglycaemic wound healing and restored the hyperglycaemic-induced Col-I reduction in HDF.
CONCLUSION: Taken together, our findings show that phlorotannin nanofibres have the potential to be used as a diabetic wound dressing.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING: Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).
PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.
INTERVENTIONS: High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I2=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I2= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I2=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I2=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I2=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I2=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I2=29%).
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.