Tranexamic acid (TXA) is regarded as one of the most important drugs in reducing blood loss and hemoglobin (Hb) drop after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). Treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) by intravenous application has been discussed extensively. Recently, several studies have reported that oral administration has an effect on blood sparing. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety between oral TXA and intravenous TXA (IV-TXA) for blood sparing in total knee and hip arthroplasty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) about relevant research were searched for by using PubMed (1996-April 2017), Embase (1980-April 2017), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, April 2017). Five studies that compared oral with IV administration of TXA were included in our meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results were collected and analyzed by the software Review Manager 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Collaboration, 2014). Five studies containing 3474 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our pooled data analysis indicated that oral TXA was as effective as the IV-TXA in terms of the average Hb drop (P = 0.88), total Hb loss (P = 0.57), total blood loss (P = 0.42), transfusion rate (P = 0.16), complications (P = 0.61), and length of hospital stay (P = 1.00). Compared with the IV-TXA method, oral TXA shows similar blood-sparing efficacy for preventing hemoglobin drop, total hemoglobin loss, and total blood loss following TKA or THA. In addition, no significant differences of transfusion rate, complications, or length of hospital stay were found between the 2 groups. However, because of the limited number of included studies, more studies of high quality are needed to further identify the optimal administration time for oral TXA.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is gradually regarded as an effective choice for end-stage osteoarthritis or rheumatic arthritis. In the past, the management of tranexamic acid (TXA) using intravenous injection or topical application has been extensively researched. However, several studies have reported that oral TXA has an effect on blood loss. Therefore, a meta-analysis should be performed to determine whether oral TXA helps to prevent blood loss. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective cohort studies about relevant studies were searched in PubMed (1996–April 2017), Embase (1980–April 2017), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, April 2017). Six studies that compared oral TXA to non-TXA were included in our meta-analysis. Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the Cochrane Handbook, and the Jadad scale were used to evaluate the included studies and the results to ensure that the meta-analysis was viable. In accordance with inclusion and exclusion, six studies with 2553 patients (oral TXA = 1386, without TXA = 1167) were eligible and accepted into this meta-analysis. Pooled data indicated that the oral TXA group was effective compared to the without TXA group in terms of hemoglobin (Hb) drop (P < 0.05), blood loss at 24 h (P < 0.05), total blood loss (P < 0.05), and the transfusion rate (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.96) and complications (P = 0.39). Compared to the non-TXA group, the oral TXA group showed effects of blood sparing. Considering the cost and effectiveness, oral TXA is useful for TKA.

Objectives: A major challenge for COVID-19 therapy is dysregulated immune response associated with the disease. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) may be a promising candidate for COVID-19 treatment owing to their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory functions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of UC-MSCs inpatients with COVID-19.Method: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect clinical trials concerning UC-MSCs for the treatment of COVID-19. After literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the included study were performed.Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered on PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42022304061. After screening, 10 studies involving 293 patients with COVID-19 were eventually included. Our meta-analysis results showed that UC-MSCs can reduce mortality (relative risk [RR] =0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.38, 0.95], P=0.03) in COVID-19 patients. No significant correlation was observed between adverse events and UC-MSC treatment (RR=0.85, 95% CI: [0.65, 1.10], P=0.22; RR=1.00, 95%CI: [0.64, 1.58], P=1.00). In addition, treatment with UC-MSCs was found to suppress inflammation and improve pulmonary symptoms.Conclusions: UC-MSCs hold promise as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.Systematic Review Registartion: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022304061

Corrigendum: Efficacy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis