SummaryBackgroundTimely management of sepsis with early targeted antimicrobial therapy improves patient outcomes. Rapid molecular assays (RMAs) have emerged, enabling the detection of bloodstream infection (BSI) with a shorter turnaround time than blood cultures (BCs). The accuracy of several RMAs has not been comprehensively reviewed. We aimed to identify commercial RMAs reported in the literature and evaluate their diagnostic performance compared to BC.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, covering MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to September 23, 2024. Eligible studies included patients with suspected or documented BSI, tested with both an RMA (turnaround time of ≤12 h, targeting ≥20 pathogens) and BC. Non-original research articles and animal studies were excluded. The primary outcomes were pooled sensitivity and specificity of RMAs for pathogen detection compared to BC. Bivariate analysis was used to produce summary receiver operating characteristic plots and diagnostic metric measures stratified by different units of analysis (sample versus patient), RMA types, and patient populations. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C) tools. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022377280.FindingsA total of 63,916 articles were identified, of which 104 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 75 in the quantitative synthesis, covering 17,952 samples and 11,393 patients analyzed separately. Eleven RMAs were identified, with four included in the RMA-based subgroup analysis (LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, IRIDICA BAC BSI assay, SepsiTest, MagicPlex Sepsis Test) and five additional ones in the pooled analysis (UMD-SelectNA, VYOO®, MicrobScan assay, MicrobScan-Kairos24/7, REBA Sepsis-ID test). Two RMAs were included in the qualitative synthesis only (InfectID-BSI, Pilot Gene Technology droplet digital polymerase chain reaction). Pooled specificity of RMAs was higher (0.858, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.830–0.883) than sensitivity (0.659, 95% CI 0.594–0.719) by patient. Sensitivities varied by RMA type from 0.492 (95% CI 0.390–0.594, MagicPlex Sepsis Test) to 0.783 (95% CI 0.662–0.870, IRIDICA BAC BSI assay) by patient. Specificities varied more by patient population, ranging from 0.811 (95% CI 0.716–0.879) in the intensive care population to 0.892 (95% CI 0.838–0.930) in the emergency department population, by patient. Similar metrics were observed when the analysis was done by sample. Risk of bias was judged to be high in all included articles.InterpretationDespite their shorter turnaround time, low sensitivity means RMAs cannot replace BCs. However, our data indicate that RMAs may have value as an add-on test by increasing pathogen detection rates. Higher-sensitivity RMAs are needed which could possibly be achieved by expanding pathogen coverage and increasing blood sample volumes. High-quality implementation studies and standardized reporting are required to assess the clinical advantages of RMAs.FundingCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University.
Abstract The utilization of PD1 and CTLA4 inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of malignant melanoma (MM). However, resistance to targeted and immune-checkpoint-based therapies still poses a significant problem. Here we mine large scale MM proteogenomic data integrating it with MM cell line dependency screen, and drug sensitivity data to identify druggable targets and forecast treatment efficacy and resistance. Leveraging protein profiles from established MM subtypes and molecular structures of 82 cancer treatment drugs, we identified nine candidate hub proteins, mTOR, FYN, PIK3CB, EGFR, MAPK3, MAP4K1, MAP2K1, SRC and AKT1, across five distinct MM subtypes. These proteins serve as potential drug targets applicable to one or multiple MM subtypes. By analyzing transcriptomic data from 48 publicly accessible melanoma cell lines sourced from Achilles and CRISPR dependency screens, we forecasted 162 potentially targetable genes. We also identified genetic resistance in 260 genes across at least one melanoma subtype. In addition, we employed publicly available compound sensitivity data (Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal, CTRPv2) on the cell lines to assess the correlation of compound effectiveness within each subtype. We have identified 20 compounds exhibiting potential drug impact in at least one melanoma subtype. Remarkably, employing this unbiased approach, we have uncovered compounds targeting ferroptosis, that demonstrate a striking 30x fold difference in sensitivity among different subtypes. This implies that the proteogenomic classification of melanoma has the potential to predict sensitivity to ferroptosis compounds. Our results suggest innovative and novel therapeutic strategies by stratifying melanoma samples through proteomic profiling, offering a spectrum of novel therapeutic interventions and prospects for combination therapy. Highlights (1) Proteogenomic subtype classification can define the landscape of genetic dependencies in melanoma (2) Nine proteins from molecular subtypes were identified as potential drug targets for specified MM patients (3) 20 compounds identified that show potential effectiveness in at least one melanoma subtype (4) Proteogenomics can predict specific ferroptosis inducers, HDAC, and RTK Inhibitor sensitivity in melanoma subtypes Graphical abstract
Background: Alopecia areata (AA) is a chronic autoimmune condition that can lead to a serious deterioration in patients’ quality of life. The first line of treatment in patchy AA is triamcinolone acetonide (TrA); however, the efficacy of the treatment varies greatly. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of AA. Method: We performed a systematic literature search in four databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) reporting on patients with AA treated with PRP were included, comparing PRP with TrA or a placebo. The primary outcome was the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. Results: Our systematic search provided a total of 2747 articles. We identified four studies eligible for quantitative analysis. The pooled mean differences from the four studies did not exhibit a significant difference in the mean change in the SALT score when PRP and TrA groups were compared (MD =−2.04, CI: −4.72–0.65; I2 = 80.4%, p = 0.14). Conclusions: PRP is a promising topical, steroid-free treatment modality in the therapy of AA. No significant difference was found between PRP and TrA treatment; however, further high-quality RCTs are needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP treatment and strengthen the quality of evidence.
Background: Chronic wounds place a heavy burden on the healthcare system due to the prolonged, continuous need for human resources for wound management. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of platelet-rich plasma on the treatment of chronic wounds. Methods: The systematic literature search was performed in four databases. Randomized clinical trials reporting on patients with chronic wounds treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) were included, comparing PRP with conventional ulcer therapy. We pooled the data using the random effects model. Our primary outcome was the change in wound size. Results: Our systematic search provided 2688 articles, and we identified 48 eligible studies after the selection and citation search. Thirty-three study groups of 29 RCTs with a total of 2198 wounds showed that the odds for complete closure were significantly higher in the PRP group than in the control group (OR = 5.32; CI: 3.37; 8.40; I2 = 58%). Conclusions: PRP is a safe and effective modality to enhance wound healing. By implementing it in clinical practice, platelet-rich plasma could become a widely used, valuable tool as it could not only improve patients’ quality of life but also decrease the healthcare burden of wound management.
Kemény, Lajos V. MD, PhD1; Hegyi, Péter MD, PhD1; Rakonczay, Zoltán Jr MD, PhD1; Borka, Katalin MD, PhD2; Korompay, Anna MD2; Gray, Mike A. PhD3; Argent, Barry E. PhD3; Venglovecz, Viktória PhD4 Author Information
