Is it time to re-think a sustainable banking model for the Italian Cord Blood Network?

Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: An Update For Childbirth Educators

To make an informed decision on umbilical cord blood banking or donation during birth, families need evidence-based, quality information on this alternative. Cord blood banking often refers to private banking, while donation generally refers to public banking. Research has shown that expectant parents do not have sufficient understanding of the cord blood banking process, umbilical cord stem cell transplants, uses of these cells, or options. Research also shows that birthing families desire that information to come from a reliable healthcare provider resource, such as a childbirth educator. Therefore, this article will offer information for use by childbirth educators, nurses, or other birth workers to increase awareness and knowledge on the topic of umbilical cord blood banking and donation.

Umbilical cord blood transplants facilitated by the French cord blood banks network. On behalf of the Agency of Biomedicine, Eurocord and the French society of bone marrow transplant and cell therapy (SFGM-TC)

The public French Cord Blood Banks Network was established in 1999 with the objective of standardizing the practices governing umbilical cord blood (UCB) banking in France. The Network adopted a strategy to optimize its inventory and improve the quality of its banked units based on a quality improvement process using outcome data regularly provided by Eurocord. This study aimed to describe the results, over 10 years, of UCBT facilitated by a national network that used the same criteria of UCB collection and banking and to assess how modifications of banking criteria and unit selection might influence transplant outcomes. Nine hundred and ninety-nine units (593 single-unit and 203 double-unit grafts) were released by the Network to transplant 796 patients with malignant (83%) and non-malignant (17%) diseases. Median cell dose exceeded 3.5 × 107 TNC/kg in 86%. There was a trend to select units more recently collected and with higher cell dose. Neutrophil engraftment was 88.2% (85.7-90.7) and 79.3% (72.6-86.5) respectively for malignant and non-malignant diseases with a trend to faster recovery with higher cell doses. The respective 3-year transplant-related mortality were 31.1% (27.5-35.1) and 34.3% (27.0-43.5). OS was 49% ± 4 in malignant and 62% ± 4 in non-malignant disorders. In multivariate analysis, cell dose was the only unit-related factor associated with outcomes. Our results reflect the benefit on clinical outcomes of the strategy adopted by the Network to bank units with higher cell counts.

Serum eye drops for the treatment of ocular surface diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of blood-derived eye drops for topical treatment of ocular surface diseases has progressively increased in recent years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the use of serum eye drops in ocular surface disorders, we performed a systematic search of the literature.

RESULTS

In this systematic review, we included 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of serum eye drops in 729 patients compared to controls. For the quantitative synthesis, we included only 10 RCTs conducted in patients with dry eye syndrome comparing autologous serum to artificial tears. At 2-6 weeks, no clear between-group differences in Schirmer test (MD 1.05; 95% CI: -0.17-2.26) and in fluorescein staining (MD -0.61; 95% CI: -1.50-0.28) were found (very low-quality evidence, down-graded for inconsistency, serious risk of biases, and serious imprecision). Slightly higher increase in tear film break-up time (TBUT) scores in autologous serum compared to control (MD 2.68; 95% CI: 1.33-4.03), and greater decrease in ocular surface disease index (OSDI) in autologous serum compared to control (MD -11.17; 95% CI: -16.58 - -5.77) were found (low quality evidence, down-graded for serious risk of bias, and for inconsistency). For the Schirmer test, fluorescein staining and TBUT, data were also available at additional follow-up timing (2-12 months): no clear between-group differences were found, and the quality of the evidence was graded as low/very-low.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with dry eye syndrome, it is unclear whether or not the use of autologous serum compared to artificial tears increases Schirmer test and fluorescein staining scores at short-term and medium-/long-term follow up. Some benefit at short-term follow up for the outcome of TBUT and OSDI was observed, but the quality of the evidence was low.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in oral surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

We found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.