OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present review is to critically discuss various surgical implications and level of evidence of most commonly employed bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion.
METHOD: Data was collected via electronic search using "PubMed", "SciFinder", "ScienceDirect", "Google Scholar", "Web of Science" and a library search for articles published in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and e-books.
RESULTS: Despite having exceptional inherent osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive features, clinical acceptability of autografts (patient's own bone) is limited due to several perioperative and postoperative complications i.e., donor-site morbidities and limited graft supply. Alternatively, allografts (bone harvested from cadaver) have shown great promise in achieving acceptable bone fusion rate while alleviating the donor-site morbidities associated with implantation of autografts. As an adjuvant to allograft, demineralized bone matrix (DBM) has shown remarkable efficacy of bone fusion, when employed as graft extender or graft enhancer. Recent advances in recombinant technologies have made it possible to implant growth and differentiation factors (bone morphogenetic proteins) for spinal fusion.
CONCLUSION: Selection of a particular bone grafting biotherapy can be rationalized based on the level of spine fusion, clinical experience and preference of orthopaedic surgeon, and prevalence of donor-site morbidities.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Clinical Trials from inception until December 2014, to identify randomized controlled trials of intravenous iron and ESA, in patients undergoing haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. Dosing of IV iron in concordance with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines was considered optimal iron therapy.
RESULTS: Of the 28 randomized controlled trials identified, seven met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results of random-effects meta-analysis show a statistically significant weighted mean (95% CI) difference of -1733 [-3073, -392] units/week in ESA dose for optimal iron versus suboptimal iron. The weighted average change in ESA dose was a reduction of 23% (range -7% to -55%) attributable to appropriate dosing of intravenous iron. A comparison of intravenous iron versus oral iron/no iron (five trials) showed a greater reduction in ESA dose, although this did not reach statistical significance (weighted mean difference, 95% CI: -2,433 [-5183, 318] units/week). The weighted average change in ESA dose across the five trials was a reduction of 31% (range -8% to -55%).
CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in ESA dosing may be achieved with optimal intravenous iron usage in the haemodialysis population, and suboptimal iron use may require higher ESA dosing to manage anaemia.
METHOD: Therefore, there is a need to improve delivery of therapeutic macromolecules to enable non-invasive delivery routes, less frequent dosing through controlled-release drug delivery, and improved drug targeting to increase efficacy and reduce side effects.
RESULT: Non-invasive administration routes such as intranasal, pulmonary, transdermal, ocular and oral delivery have been attempted intensively by formulating macromolecules into nanoparticulate carriers system such as polymeric and lipidic nanoparticles.
CONCLUSION: This review discusses barriers to drug delivery and current formulation technologies to overcome the unfavorable properties of macromolecules via non-invasive delivery (mainly intranasal, pulmonary, transdermal oral and ocular) with a focus on nanoparticulate carrier systems. This review also provided a summary and discussion of recent data on non-invasive delivery of macromolecules using nanoparticulate formulations.