5 research outputs found
Multi-modular bone healing assessment in a randomized controlled clinical trial of root-end surgery with the use of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and an occlusive membrane
No full textOBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess in a multi-modular manner the bone healing 1 year post root-end surgery (RES) with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF) and Bio-Gide® (BG; Geistlich Pharma North America, Inc., Princeton, USA) as an occlusive membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of RES +/- LPRF and +/- BG was performed. The follow-up until 1 year post RES was performed by means of ultrasound imaging (UI), periapical radiographs (PR), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). RESULTS: From the 50 included patients, 6 dropped-out during follow-up. For the 44 assessed patients (34 with UI and 42 with PR and CBCT), there was no evidence (p > 0.05) for an effect of LRPF, neither on UI measurements nor on CBCT assessments. On the contrary, there was an indication for a better outcome with BG. UI presented significant shorter healing time for the bony crypt surface (p = 0.014) and cortical opening (p = 0.006) for the groups with BG. The qualitative CBCT assessment for the combined scores of the apical area and cortical plane was significantly higher for BG (p = 0.01 and 0.02). The quantitative CBCT measurement for bone healing after 1 year was lower with BG (p = 0.019), as well as the percentage of non-zero values (p = 0.026), irrespective of the preoperative lesion size and type. Furthermore, UI seemed to be safer for frequent follow-up during the early postoperative stage (0-3 months), whereas CBCT gave more accurate results 1 year post RES. Amongst the assessors, the qualitative PR analysis was inconsistent for a favorable outcome 1 year post RES with LPRF (p = 0.11 and p = 0.023), but consistent for BG (p = 0.024 and p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for improvement of bone healing when RES was applied with LPRF in comparison with RES without LPRF. However, RES with BG gave evidence for a better outcome than RES without BG. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The addition of an occlusive membrane rather than an autologous platelet concentrate improved bone regeneration 1 year post RES significantly, irrespective of the assessment device applied. The accuracy of PR assessment is questionable.status: publishe
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants
No full textHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been largely used and investigated as therapy for COVID-19 across various
settings at a total dose usually ranging from 2400 mg to 9600 mg. In Belgium, off-label use of
low-dose HCQ (total 2400 mg over 5 days) was recommended for hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in the Belgian national COVID-19 hospital
surveillance data. Patients treated either with HCQ monotherapy and supportive care (HCQ group) were
compared with patients treated with supportive care only (no-HCQ group) using a competing risks proportional
hazards regression with discharge alive as competing risk, adjusted for demographic and clinical
features with robust standard errors. Of 8075 patients with complete discharge data on 24 May 2020
and diagnosed before 1 May 2020, 4542 received HCQ in monotherapy and 3533 were in the no-HCQ
group. Death was reported in 804/4542 (17.7%) and 957/3533 (27.1%), respectively. In the multivariable
analysis, mortality was lower in the HCQ group compared with the no-HCQ group [adjusted hazard ratio
(aHR) = 0.684, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.617–0.758]. Compared with the no-HCQ group, mortality
in the HCQ group was reduced both in patients diagnosed ≤5 days ( n = 3975) and > 5 days ( n = 3487)
after symptom onset [aHR = 0.701 (95% CI 0.617–0.796) and aHR = 0.647 (95% CI 0.525–0.797), respectively].
Compared with supportive care only, low-dose HCQ monotherapy was independently associated
with lower mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 diagnosed and treated early or later after
symptom onset.</p
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants
No full textHydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been largely used and investigated as therapy for COVID-19 across various settings at a total dose usually ranging from 2400 mg to 9600 mg. In Belgium, off-label use of low-dose HCQ (total 2400 mg over 5 days) was recommended for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in the Belgian national COVID-19 hospital surveillance data. Patients treated either with HCQ monotherapy and supportive care (HCQ group) were compared with patients treated with supportive care only (no-HCQ group) using a competing risks proportional hazards regression with discharge alive as competing risk, adjusted for demographic and clinical features with robust standard errors. Of 8075 patients with complete discharge data on 24 May 2020 and diagnosed before 1 May 2020, 4542 received HCQ in monotherapy and 3533 were in the no-HCQ group. Death was reported in 804/4542 (17.7%) and 957/3533 (27.1%), respectively. In the multivariable analysis, mortality was lower in the HCQ group compared with the no-HCQ group [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.684, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.617-0.758]. Compared with the no-HCQ group, mortality in the HCQ group was reduced both in patients diagnosed ≤5 days (n = 3975) and >5 days (n = 3487) after symptom onset [aHR = 0.701 (95% CI 0.617-0.796) and aHR = 0.647 (95% CI 0.525-0.797), respectively]. Compared with supportive care only, low-dose HCQ monotherapy was independently associated with lower mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 diagnosed and treated early or later after symptom onset.status: publishe
