Background: Blue light (BL) irradiation has been shown to induce photobiomodulation (PBM) in cells. Here, we investigate its influence on cell types involved in wound healing. Methods: Cellular responses of immortalized human keratinocytes (HaCaTs), normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDFs), and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) after light treatment at 450 nm were analyzed by kinetic assays on cell viability, proliferation, ATP quantification, migration assay, and apoptosis assay. Gene expression was evaluated by transcriptome analysis. Results: A biphasic effect was observed on HaCaTs, NHDFs, and HUVECs. Low-fluence (4.5 J/cm²) irradiation stimulated cell viability, proliferation, and migration. mRNA sequencing indicated involvement of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), ErbB, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways. High-fluence (18 J/cm²) irradiation inhibited these cellular activities by downregulating DNA replication, the cell cycle, and mismatch repair pathways. Conclusions: HaCaTs, NHDFs, and HUVECs exhibited a dose-dependent pattern after BL irradiation. These findings broaden the view of PBM following BL irradiation of these three cell types, thereby promoting their potential application in wound healing and angiogenesis. Our data on low-fluence BL at 450 nm indicates clinical potential for a novel modality in wound therapy.

Background: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) has a major impact on the quality of life after deep venous thrombosis (DVT). From clinical practice and related trials, anticoagulants show potential for reducing the occurrence and alleviating the symptoms of PTS. Methods: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted by combing the literature from the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Libraries, and ClinicalTrials, through a variety of medical subject headings (Mesh) and PTS keywords. With regard to PTS prophylaxis, all anticoagulant-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were assessed. The network model was conducted through the R software, and further comparisons were conducted using the Bayesian hierarchical random effects model. The odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for analysis. Results: Data from two RCTs and nine non-randomized studies meeting the selection criteria were included in the Bayesian analysis model, which incorporated seven anticoagulants. Edoxaban (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18–1.0) and rivaroxaban (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.38–0.76) were significantly more effective than warfarin in the prevention of PTS (Villalta score ≥ 5). A subgroup analysis based on the severity of PTS showed that rivaroxaban was more effective than warfarin, with OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41–0.84 (Villalta score 5 to 14) and OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22–0.9 (Villalta score ≥ 15, ulceration), respectively. Edoxaban had the highest probability (80.1%) of providing preventive benefits for PTS. For mild/moderate and severe PTS, rivaroxaban provided the highest benefits in preventing PTS (89.3% and 85.6%, respectively). Conclusion: Edoxaban demonstrated a better prophylactic effect on PTS (Villalta score > 5), while rivaroxaban displayed a better effect against mild/moderate (Villalta score 5 to 14) and severe PTS (Villalta score ≥ 15, ulceration).

Background: In lung cancer, the relevance of various CTC subgroups in different lung cancer subtypes is unclear. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of CTCs in the different histologic types of lung cancer, with particular respect to CTC subtypes, cutoffs, and time points of CTC enumeration. Methods: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase alongside relevant studies evaluating the prognostic value of CTCs in lung cancer patients. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis, calculating hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and p-values. Results: A total of 27 studies enrolling 2957 patients were included. CTC detection indicates poor prognosis, especially in SCLC (small cell lung cancer) patients (OS: HR = 3.11, [95% CI: 2.59 – 3.73]), and predicts a worse outcome compared to NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) patients. Epithelial CTCs predict a worse outcome for lung cancer than mesenchymal CTCs or epithelial-mesenchymal hybrids. Conclusion: CTCs indicate poor prognosis in patients with primary lung cancer, with CTC in SCLC having a more pronounced prognostic effect. The prognostic value of CTCs detected by different markers varies; most evidence is available for the strong negative prognostic effect of epithelial CTCs.