Search

Introduction: Calcium Hydroxylapatite (CaHA) is a common dermal filler used in aesthetic medicine for volumizing and contouring. Understanding mechanisms of actions of CaHA can help improve our understanding of its clinical applications. Methods:We performed a systematic review to summarize the skin-regeneration related mechanisms of CaHA. Five bibliographic databases were searched for English-language publications that evaluated CaHA in skin regeneration outcomes including neocollagenesis, cell proliferation and growth factors, angiogenesis, vascular dynamic and inflammatory markers, among others. Methodological rigor of included studies was assessed. Results: Of 2,935 identified citations, 12 studies were included for final analysis. Collagen production was reported by nine studies, cell proliferation by four, elastic fibers and/or elastin by four, and three studies on angiogenesis, while limited studies were available on the other outcomes. Six were clinical/observational studies. Only seven studies had a control group. Overall, studies showed CaHA resulted in increased cell proliferation, increased collagen production and angiogenesis, as well as in higher elastic fiber and elastin formation. Limited and inconclusive evidence was available on the other mechanisms. The majority of the studies had methodological limitations. Discussion: Current evidence is limited but indicates several mechanisms through which CaHA could lead to skin regeneration, volume enhancement, and contouring. Systematic review registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WY49V.

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining, + ID der Publikation: unilu_64313 + Sprache: Englisch + Letzte Aktualisierung: 2023-03-24 10:52:13

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncer

Aims: To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations. Methods and results: We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01–1.18, I2: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04–1.34, I2: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11–1.58, I2: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10–1.43, I2: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13–5.64, I2: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (Pnonlinearity > 0.05). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person’s lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.

Objectives: Menopause is accompanied by many metabolic changes, increasing the risk of cardiometabolic diseases. The impact of diet, as a modifiable lifestyle factor, on cardiovascular health in general populations has been well established. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence on the effects of whole diet on lipid profile, glycemic indices, and blood pressure in postmenopausal women. Methods: Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to February 2021. We included controlled clinical trials in postmenopausal women that assessed the effect of a whole-diet intervention on lipid profile, glycemic indices, and/or blood pressure. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Summary of evidence: Among 2,134 references, 21 trials met all eligibility criteria. Overall, results were heterogenuous and inconsistent. Compared to control diets, some studies showed that participants experienced improvements in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), systolic blood pressure (SBP), fasting blood sugar (FBS), and apolipoprotein A (Apo-A) after following fat-modified diets, but some adverse effects on triglycerides (TG), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) concentrations were also observed. A limited number of trials found some effects of the Paleolithic, weight-loss, plant-based, or energy-restricted diets, or of following American Heart Association recommendations on TG, TC, HDL, insulin, FBS, or insulin resistance. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that diet may affect levels of some lipid profile markers, glycemic indices, and blood pressure among postmenopausal women. However, due to the large heterogeneity in intervention diets, comparison groups, intervention durations, and population characteristics, findings are inconclusive

Objectives: Menopause is accompanied by many metabolic changes, increasing the risk of cardiometabolic diseases. The impact of diet, as a modifiable lifestyle factor, on cardiovascular health in general populations has been well established. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence on the effects of whole diet on lipid profile, glycemic indices, and blood pressure in postmenopausal women. Methods: Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to February 2021. We included controlled clinical trials in postmenopausal women that assessed the effect of a whole-diet intervention on lipid profile, glycemic indices, and/or blood pressure. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Summary of evidence: Among 2,134 references, 21 trials met all eligibility criteria. Overall, results were heterogenuous and inconsistent. Compared to control diets, some studies showed that participants experienced improvements in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), systolic blood pressure (SBP), fasting blood sugar (FBS), and apolipoprotein A (Apo-A) after following fat-modified diets, but some adverse effects on triglycerides (TG), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) concentrations were also observed. A limited number of trials found some effects of the Paleolithic, weight-loss, plant-based, or energy-restricted diets, or of following American Heart Association recommendations on TG, TC, HDL, insulin, FBS, or insulin resistance. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that diet may affect levels of some lipid profile markers, glycemic indices, and blood pressure among postmenopausal women. However, due to the large heterogeneity in intervention diets, comparison groups, intervention durations, and population characteristics, findings are inconclus