Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections in the management of patients with rotator cuff disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an alternative to corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing rotator cuff disease. This meta-analysis investigated differences between PRP and CS for function and pain scores in significance and minimal clinical important difference (MCID). A literature search of Ovid Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Epub, and Scopus was conducted from inception to October 28, 2021. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years with a diagnosis of rotator cuff disease. This review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021278740). Twelve studies met eligibility criteria (n = 639) of patients receiving either PRP or CS. At short-term follow-up, a difference favored CS compared to PRP in baseline change for disability of arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score (MD = -5.08, 95% CI: -8.00, -2.15; p = 0.0007; I2  = 0%) and simple shoulder test (SST) (MD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.33, 2.18; p = 0.008; I2  = 0%). At intermediate follow-up, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the DASH score (MD = 3.41, 95% CI: 0.67, 6.15; p = 0.01; I2  = 0%). At medium-term, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) score (MD = -4.42, 95% CI: -8.16, -0.67; p = 0.02; I2  = 0%). Both treatments achieved individual MCID for each score. Despite favoring CS at short-term follow-up and PRP at intermediate- and medium-term follow-up, functional and pain scores did not demonstrate any clinical difference between the two treatment modalities in management of rotator cuff disease at all follow-up periods

Anti-tumour activity of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in human pancreatic tumour cells

Background:The combination of the reversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib with gemcitabine obtained FDA approval for treating patients with pancreatic cancer. However, duration of response is often limited and there is currently no reliable predictive marker.Methods:We determined the sensitivity of a panel of human pancreatic tumour cell lines to treatment with afatinib, erlotinib, monoclonal antibody (mAb) ICR62, and gemcitabine, using the Sulforhodamine B colorimetric assay. The effect of these agents on cell signalling and cell-cycle distribution was determined by western blot and flow cytometry, respectively.Results:At 200 nM, ICR62 had no effect on growth of these tumour cells with the exception of BxPC-3 cells. BxPC-3 cells were also sensitive to treatment with afatinib and erlotinib with respective IC(50) values of 11 and 1200 nM. Compared with erlotinib, afatinib was also more effective in inhibiting the growth of the other human pancreatic tumour cell lines and in blocking the EGF-induced phosphorylation of tyrosine, EGFR, MAPK, and AKT. When tested in BxPC-3 xenografts, afatinib induced significant delay in tumour growth.Conclusion:The superiority of afatinib in this study encourages further investigation on the therapeutic potential of afatinib as a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 4 October 2011; doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.396 www.bjcancer.com