Systematic review and quality assessment of clinical and economic evidence for superabsorbent wound dressings in a population with chronic ulcers.

Effective exudate management is key for optimal ulcer healing. Superabsorbent dressings are designed to have high fluid handling capacity, reduced risk of exudate leakage, fluid retention under compression, and to sequester harmful exudate components. This study aimed to systematically identify existing evidence for the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of superabsorbent dressings for the treatment of moderate-to-highly exudating chronic ulcers of various etiologies. The aim is focused on examining the 'class' effect of all superabsorbers, not any particular dressing. Clinical and cost effectiveness systematic reviews were conducted, searching Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Econ papers were also searched for the economic review. Outcomes of interest included ulcer closure, dressing properties, hospital- and infection-related outcomes, safety, and economic outcomes. Fourteen studies were included in the clinical systematic review. Eleven were case series, with one randomised controlled trial, one retrospective matched observational study, and one retrospective cohort study. The studies investigated eight superabsorbent dressings and were heterogeneous in their patient population and outcomes. Superabsorbent dressings may result in favourable outcomes, including reductions in frequency of dressing change and pain scores. As most studies were case series, drawing firm conclusions was difficult due to absence of a comparator arm. The economic systematic review identified seven studies, five of which were cost-utility analyses. These suggested superabsorbent dressings are a more cost-effective option for the treatment of chronic ulcers compared with standard dressings. However, the small number and low quality of studies identified in both reviews highlights the need for future research.

Prognostic models for clinical outcomes in patients with venous leg ulcers: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify prognostic models for clinical application in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from inception to December 22, 2021. Eligible studies reported prognostic models aimed at developing, validating, and adjusting multivariable prognostic models that include multiple prognostic factors combined, and that predicted clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the CHARMS checklist and PROBAST short form questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, of which three were validation studies of previously published models, four reported derivation and validation of models, and the remainder reported derivation models only. There was substantial heterogeneity in the model characteristics, including 11 studies focused on wound healing outcomes reporting 91 different predictors. Three studies shared similar predicted outcomes, follow-up timepoint and used a Cox proportional hazards model. However, these models reported different predictor selection methods and different predictors and it was therefore not feasible to summarize performance, such as discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: There are no standout risk prediction models in the literature with promising clinical application for patients with VLUs. Future research should focus on developing and validating high-performing models in wider VLU populations.

High-protein home parenteral nutrition in malnourished oncology patients: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 83% of oncology patients are affected by cancer-related malnutrition, depending on tumour location and patient age. Parenteral nutrition can be used to manage malnutrition, but there is no clear consensus as to the optimal protein dosage. The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to identify studies on malnourished oncology patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) where protein or amino acid delivery was reported in g/kg bodyweight/day, and to compare outcomes between patients receiving low (< 1 g/kg bodyweight/day), standard (1-1.5 g/kg/day), and high-protein doses (> 1.5 g/kg/day). METHODS: Literature searches were performed on 5th October 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and five Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Searches were complemented by hand-searching of conference proceedings, a clinical trial registry, and bibliographic reference lists of included studies and relevant SLRs/meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen publications were included; sixteen investigated standard protein, two reported low protein, and one included both, but none assessed high-protein doses. Only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) was identified; all other studies were observational studies. The only study to compare two protein doses reported significantly greater weight gain in patients receiving 1.15 g/kg/day than those receiving 0.77 g/kg/day. CONCLUSION: At present, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal protein dosage for malnourished oncology patients receiving HPN. Data from non-HPN studies and critically ill patients indicate that high-protein interventions are associated with increased overall survival and quality of life; further studies are needed to establish whether the same applies in malnourished oncology patients.