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.

Efficacy and Safety of Brolucizumab, Aflibercept, and Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Visual Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Oedema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Key clinical guidelines recommend anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy as first-line treatment for visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted comparing the relative efficacy of the anti-VEGF brolucizumab with a focused network of the most relevant comparator dosing regimens approved in countries other than the USA (aflibercept, ranibizumab). The safety and tolerability of brolucizumab were also assessed. METHODS: A broad SLR was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials to ensure all relevant potential comparators were captured. Identified studies were refined to those appropriate for inclusion in the NMA. A Bayesian NMA was conducted comparing brolucizumab 6 mg (every 12 [Q12W]/every 8 weeks [Q8W]) with relevant aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the NMA. At 1-year follow-up, the various aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens were mostly comparable with brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W across key visual and anatomical outcomes, except brolucizumab 6 mg was favoured over ranibizumab 0.5 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for the change from baseline (CFB) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and BCVA loss/gain of pre-specified numbers of letters, and over ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata for CFB in diabetic retinopathy severity scale, and retinal thickness. At year 2, where data were available, brolucizumab 6 mg showed similar results across efficacy outcomes versus all other anti-VEGFs. In most cases, discontinuation rates (all cause, and due to adverse events [AE]) and serious and overall rates of AEs excluding ocular inflammatory events were similar (in unpooled and pooled-treatment analyses) versus comparators. CONCLUSION: Brolucizumab 6 mg Q12W/Q8W was comparable or superior to aflibercept 2 mg and ranibizumab 0.5 mg regimens for various visual and anatomical efficacy outcomes and discontinuation rates.