Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a consequence of chronic venous insufficiency, resulting in prolonged healing, high recurrence rates, and substantial economic burden. Traditional treatments, including compression therapy and wound care management, often lead to slow and incomplete healing. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a potential therapy for enhancing wound healing, though its effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed PRP's impact on wound healing in VLUs compared to conventional treatments. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science databases and 13 studies with a total of 554 patients were included. Healing outcomes, including complete and partial ulcer healing rates, were analyzed using binary random-effects models. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using tau², Q-tests, and I² statistics. Meta-analysis demonstrated that PRP treatment was associated with a 1.5-fold higher odds of complete wound healing compared with conventional treatments (95% CI 1.09-2.07) (I² = 58%). Ulcer area reduction was higher in the PRP group (OR: 16.37 [95% CI 6.45-26.28], I² = 97%). Complete healing at the fourth week showed a meta-analytical OR 3.65 [1.08-12.32] with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 61%, p < 0.001). Meta-regression revealed a significant positive association between age and treatment effect, whereas diabetes mellitus was a significant negative predictor. PRP reduced ulcer recurrence (OR: 0.25 [95% CI 0.06-0.99], p < 0.001) with low heterogeneity. PRP was associated with improved healing outcomes in VLUs and significantly enhanced wound healing. These findings suggest that PRP may enhance wound healing in venous leg ulcers and warrant further high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials to confirm its clinical applicability.

Introduction/Objectives: Although contemporary cardiovascular guidelines endorse intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and advanced lipid biomarkers for refined risk stratification, important gaps in knowledge and implementation persist. This study evaluated clinician familiarity with novel lipid-lowering therapies, approaches to residual cardiovascular risk, confidence in identifying familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), and perceived usefulness of digital decision-support tools. Methods: A multispecialty, cross-sectional online survey (October 2025) of physicians involved in dyslipidemia care was conducted. The questionnaire assessed familiarity, accessibility, and barriers regarding proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, and bempedoic acid; confidence and practice in managing complex populations and residual risk; confidence in detecting FH and expectations for lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]; and perceived value of digital decision-support and automated risk alerts. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were performed. Results: Ninety-five clinicians completed the survey, with the largest group (41.1%) being general practitioners. Of them, 20.0% reported familiarity with all three novel therapies, and 49.5% reported restricted access due to cost and reimbursement constraints. Overall confidence in managing dyslipidemia in complex populations was moderate. Of note, 31.6% did not routinely assess residual risk after achieving LDL-C targets. Among those who did, imaging-based evaluation of subclinical atherosclerosis was the most frequently selected approach, followed by Lp(a) and triglycerides, hs-CRP, and apoB. Confidence in recognizing FH was modest, and expectations regarding future Lp(a) testing differed across specialties. Most respondents endorsed integrated decision-support tools and automated risk-alert prompts. Conclusions: Implementation gaps persist in dyslipidemia care, while strong receptiveness to digital decision-support highlights an opportunity to align practice more closely with evidence-based recommendations.