Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 60
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Rev Med Virol ; 32(5): e2342, 2022 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35366033

RESUMO

The cornerstone of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of viral RNA. As a surrogate assay SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection does not necessarily imply infectivity. Only virus isolation in permissive cell culture systems can indicate infectivity. Here, we review the evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2. We searched for any studies that used RT-PCR and cell culture to determine infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. We assessed (i) diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR compared to cell culture as reference test, (ii) performed meta-analysis of positive predictive values (PPV) and (iii) determined the virus isolation probabilities depending on cycle threshold (Ct) or log10 genome copies/ml using logistic regression. We included 55 studies. There is substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity. Seven studies were included for diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 90% to 99% and specificity from 29% to 92%. In meta-analysis, the PPVs varied across subgroups with different sampling times after symptom onset, with 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-7%) in sampling beyond 10 days and 27% (CI, 19%-36%) to 46% (CI, 33%-60%) in subgroups that also included earlier samples. Estimates of virus isolation probability varied between 6% (CI, 0%-100%) and 50% (CI, 0%-100%) at a Ct value of 30 and between 0% (CI, 0%-22%) and 63% (CI, 0%-100%) at 5 log10 genome copies/ml. Evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples was limited. Major limitations were heterogeneity and poor reporting. RT-PCR and cell culture protocols need further standardisation.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Teste para COVID-19 , Humanos , RNA Viral/genética , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
2.
Age Ageing ; 52(3)2023 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36929844

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centredness (PC) is central to the health care of older adults with multimorbidity, but knowledge about the psychometric quality of instruments measuring it in this group is scarce. Based on an integrative model of PC, we aimed to identify assessment instruments of PC for this particular group and evaluate their psychometric properties. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and PSYNDEX), initially covering research published up to 2018 and updated later to include work up to July 2022. In evaluating the psychometric properties of identified instruments, we followed the COSMIN methodology. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies reporting on 10 instruments measuring PC in the health care of older adults with multimorbidity. For these instruments, structural validity and internal consistency were the psychometric properties reported most often. Based on the COSMIN criteria, eight instruments received favourable ratings for internal consistency with respect to methodological quality ('very good'), measurement property ('sufficient') and overall quality of evidence ('moderate'). Ratings of structural validity varied more largely, with three to seven instruments showing at least adequate methodological quality, sufficient structural validity or moderate quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to comparable previous reviews, evidence on the psychometric properties of instruments assessing PC in the health care of older adults with multimorbidity was rather limited. Informed by comprehensive models of PC, further research should aim at developing measures of PC that stand out on a broader range of psychometric properties.


Assuntos
Atenção à Saúde , Multimorbidade , Humanos , Idoso , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Psicometria/métodos
3.
Epidemiol Infect ; 147: e314, 2019 12 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31802726

RESUMO

The impact of mechanical ventilation on the daily costs of intensive care unit (ICU) care is largely unknown. We thus conducted a systematic search for studies measuring the daily costs of ICU stays for general populations of adults (age ≥18 years) and the added costs of mechanical ventilation. The relative increase in the daily costs was estimated using random effects meta regression. The results of the analyses were applied to a recent study calculating the excess length-of-stay associated with ICU-acquired (ventilator-associated) pneumonia, a major complication of mechanical ventilation. The search identified five eligible studies including a total of 54 766 patients and ~238 037 patient days in the ICU. Overall, mechanical ventilation was associated with a 25.8% (95% CI 4.7%-51.2%) increase in the daily costs of ICU care. A combination of these estimates with standardised unit costs results in approximate daily costs of a single ventilated ICU day of €1654 and €1580 in France and Germany, respectively. Mechanical ventilation is a major driver of ICU costs and should be taken into account when measuring the financial burden of adverse events in ICU settings.


Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos/economia , Custos Hospitalares/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/economia , Respiração Artificial/economia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , França , Alemanha , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem
4.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand ; 97(5): 521-535, 2018 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29215155

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The number of clinical trials investigating the optimal timing of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section has increased rapidly over the last few years. We conducted a systematic review to inform up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to prevent postpartum infectious morbidity in the mother and rule out any safety issues related to antepartum antibiotic exposure in infants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for published reports of trials. Ongoing or unpublished studies were searched in Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization registry platform. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis before and after cord clamping in cesarean section were eligible. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed, and certainty of evidence graded. RESULTS: In total, 18 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Those women who received antibiotics preoperatively were 28% (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.92, nine studies, 4342 women, high quality of evidence) less likely to show infectious morbidity as compared with those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. The risk of endomyometritis and/or endometritis was reduced by 43% (relative risk 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.82, 13 studies, 6250 women, high quality of evidence) and the risk of wound infection by 38% (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.81, 14 studies, 6450 women, high quality of evidence) in those who received antibiotics preoperatively as compared to those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. For other maternal infections no significant differences were identified. The risk for neonatal outcomes, such as deaths attributed to infection, sepsis, neonatal antibiotic treatment, intensive care unit admission or antibiotic-related adverse events, was not found to be different, either clinically or statistically, when antibiotics were given before or after cord clamping (moderate to low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in favor of prophylactic antibiotic administration before, in comparison with after, cord clamping for major maternal infections was of high quality, meaning that further research would be unlikely to change the confidence in these findings. However, we recommend additional research reflecting the precision of the effect estimates for neonatal outcomes.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Cesárea , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Infecção Puerperal/prevenção & controle , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Cordão Umbilical , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/efeitos adversos , Constrição , Esquema de Medicação , Feminino , Humanos , Assistência Perinatal/métodos , Gravidez , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/efeitos adversos , Infecção Puerperal/etiologia
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD007476, 2017 08 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28809446

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.


Assuntos
Benzoatos/uso terapêutico , Quelantes de Ferro/uso terapêutico , Sobrecarga de Ferro/tratamento farmacológico , Talassemia/complicações , Triazóis/uso terapêutico , Administração Oral , Benzoatos/administração & dosagem , Benzoatos/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Fase II como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Deferasirox , Deferiprona , Desferroxamina/administração & dosagem , Desferroxamina/uso terapêutico , Transfusão de Eritrócitos/efeitos adversos , Ferritinas/sangue , Humanos , Quelantes de Ferro/administração & dosagem , Quelantes de Ferro/efeitos adversos , Sobrecarga de Ferro/sangue , Sobrecarga de Ferro/etiologia , Satisfação do Paciente , Piridonas/administração & dosagem , Piridonas/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Talassemia/mortalidade , Talassemia/terapia , Triazóis/administração & dosagem , Triazóis/efeitos adversos
6.
BJU Int ; 116(1): 30-6, 2015 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25523493

RESUMO

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. We included randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias as well as quality of evidence according to the GRADE working group guidelines. We used Review Manager 5.2 for data synthesis and the fixed-effect model as primary analysis (when heterogeneity was low with I(2) < 50%); we used a random-effects model when confronted with substantial or considerable heterogeneity (when I(2) ≥50%). A total of 11 studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in the present review. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens resulted in lower overall survival times (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and greater clinical progression (1 year: risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (1 year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens increased the risk for treatment discontinuation as a result of adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79- 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants) and gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19-22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flushes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19-0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flushes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE; therefore, further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Receptores LHRH/agonistas , Antagonistas de Androgênios/efeitos adversos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Humanos , Masculino , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Taxa de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (10): CD007461, 2014 Oct 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25348770

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia, most people with MDS require supportive therapy including repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In combination with increased iron absorption, this contributes to the accumulation of iron resulting in secondary iron overload and the risk of organ dysfunction and reduced life expectancy. Since the human body has no natural means of removing excess iron, iron chelation therapy, i.e. the pharmacological treatment of iron overload, is usually recommended. However, it is unclear whether or not the newer oral chelator deferasirox leads to relevant benefit. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 03 April 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File and four trial registries: Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), ICTRP (www.who.int./ictrp/en/), and German Clinical Trial Register (www.drks.de). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deferasirox with no therapy, placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in this review. MAIN RESULTS: No trials met our inclusion criteria. However, we identified three ongoing and one completed trial (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail to permit us to decide on inclusion) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We planned to report evidence from RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of deferasirox compared to either placebo, no treatment or other chelating regimens, such as deferoxamine, in people with MDS. However, we did not identify any completed RCTs addressing this question.We found three ongoing and one completed RCT (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment and data will hopefully be available soon. These results will be important to inform physicians and patients on the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option.


Assuntos
Benzoatos/uso terapêutico , Terapia por Quelação/métodos , Quelantes de Ferro/uso terapêutico , Sobrecarga de Ferro/tratamento farmacológico , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/complicações , Triazóis/uso terapêutico , Deferasirox , Humanos
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD007477, 2014 06 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24893174

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders, that occurs in about 2.2 per 1000 births worldwide. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood cell transfusions or are on long-term transfusion programmes for e.g. secondary stroke prevention. Iron chelation therapy can prevent long-term complications.Deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, questions exist about the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with SCD and secondary iron overload. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: date of most recent search:13 March 2014.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE, EBMR and The Cochrane Library, respectively; date of most recent searches: 02 August 2013.We searched four trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/; www.drks.de; date of most recent searches: 03 June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the corresponding study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (with 203 and 212 people) comparing the efficacy and safety of deferasirox and deferoxamine after 12 months and 24 weeks, respectively, were included. The overall quality, according to GRADE, for the main outcomes was moderate to low. Only limited data were available on mortality and end-organ damage, although one study did assess mortality, relative risk 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 30.41), the 24-week follow up was too short to allow us to draw firm conclusions. One study reported a relative risk of 1.26 for the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 30.41). Serum ferritin reduction was significantly greater with deferoxamine, mean difference of change of 440.69 µg/l (95% confidence interval 11.73 to 869.64). Liver iron concentration (reported in one study) measured by superconduction quantum interference device showed no significant difference for the overall group of patients adjusted for transfusion category, mean difference -0.20 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% confidence interval -3.15 to 2.75).The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between drugs. Nausea, diarrhoea and rash occurred significantly more often in people treated with deferasirox, while adverse events of any kind were more often reported for patients treated with deferoxamine (one study). The mean increase of creatinine was also significantly higher with deferasirox, mean difference 3.24 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 6.03). Long-term adverse events could not be measured in the included studies (follow up 52 weeks and 24 weeks). Patient satisfaction and the likelihood of continuing treatment, were significantly better with deferasirox. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deferasirox appears to be of similar efficacy to deferoxamine depending on depending on the appropriate ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. However, only limited evidence is available assessing the efficacy regarding patient-important outcomes. The short-term safety of deferasirox seems to be acceptable, however, follow up in the available studies was too short to assess long-term side effects. Long-term safety and efficacy data are available from a non-controlled extension phase not included in our review; however, no valid comparative conclusions can be drawn and future studies should assess comparatively long-term outcomes both for safety and efficacy.

9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (9): CD009126, 2014 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25177838

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Informal carers of people with dementia can suffer from depressive symptoms, emotional distress and other physiological, social and financial consequences. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on three main objectives:To:1) produce a quantitative review of the efficacy of telephone counselling for informal carers of people with dementia;2) synthesize qualitative studies to explore carers' experiences of receiving telephone counselling and counsellors' experiences of conducting telephone counselling; and3) integrate 1) and 2) to identify aspects of the intervention that are valued and work well, and those interventional components that should be improved or redesigned. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, Web of Science, DIMDI databases, Springer database, Science direct and trial registers were searched on 3 May 2011 and updated on 25 February 2013. A Forward Citation search was conducted for included studies in Web of Science and Google Scholar. We used the Related Articles service of PubMed for included studies, contacted experts and hand-searched abstracts of five congresses. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over trials that compared telephone counselling for informal carers of people with dementia against no treatment, usual care or friendly calls for chatting were included evaluation of efficacy. Qualitative studies with qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were also included to address experiences with telephone counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quantitative trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the qualitative studies with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. The authors conducted meta-analyses, but reported some results in narrative form due to clinical heterogeneity. The authors synthesised the qualitative data and integrated quantitative RCT data with the qualitative data. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs and two qualitative studies were included. Six studies investigated telephone counselling without additional intervention, one study combined telephone counselling with video sessions, and two studies combined it with video sessions and a workbook. All quantitative studies had a high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and outcome assessment. Most studies provided no information about random sequence generation and allocation concealment. The quality of the qualitative studies ('thin descriptions') was assessed as moderate. Meta-analyses indicated a reduction of depressive symptoms for telephone counselling without additional intervention (three trials, 163 participants: standardised mean different (SMD) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.63, P value 0.04; moderate quality evidence). The estimated effects on other outcomes (burden, distress, anxiety, quality of life, self-efficacy, satisfaction and social support) were uncertain and differences could not be excluded (burden: four trials, 165 participants: SMD 0.45, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.90, P value 0.05; moderate quality evidence; support: two trials, 67 participants: SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.73, P value 0.32; low quality evidence). None of the quantitative studies included reported adverse effects or harm due to telephone counselling. Three analytical themes (barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of telephone counselling, counsellor's emotional attitude and content of telephone counselling) and 16 descriptive themes that present the carers' needs for telephone counselling were identified in the thematic synthesis. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data shows potential for improvement. For example, no RCT reported that the counsellor provided 24-hour availability or that there was debriefing of the counsellor. Also, the qualitative studies covered a limited range of ways of performing telephone counselling. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that telephone counselling can reduce depressive symptoms for carers of people with dementia and that telephone counselling meets important needs of the carer. This result needs to be confirmed in future studies that evaluate efficacy through robust RCTs and the experience aspect through qualitative studies with rich data.


Assuntos
Cuidadores/psicologia , Aconselhamento/normas , Demência/enfermagem , Depressão/terapia , Telefone , Idoso , Aconselhamento/métodos , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Satisfação Pessoal , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Autoeficácia , Apoio Social
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (6): CD009266, 2014 Jun 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24979481

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/uso terapêutico , Hormônio Liberador de Gonadotropina/uso terapêutico , Orquiectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Antagonistas de Androgênios/efeitos adversos , Anilidas/efeitos adversos , Anilidas/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Flutamida/efeitos adversos , Flutamida/uso terapêutico , Hormônio Liberador de Gonadotropina/efeitos adversos , Gosserrelina/efeitos adversos , Gosserrelina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Leuprolida/efeitos adversos , Leuprolida/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Adesão à Medicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Nitrilas/efeitos adversos , Nitrilas/uso terapêutico , Orquiectomia/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Compostos de Tosil/efeitos adversos , Compostos de Tosil/uso terapêutico , Pamoato de Triptorrelina/efeitos adversos , Pamoato de Triptorrelina/uso terapêutico
11.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 20(13): 4169-82, 2013 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24002536

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although neoadjuvant radiotherapy may improve local control of rectal cancer, its clinical value requires further evaluation as a result of potential side effects and advances in surgical technique. A meta-analysis was performed to assess effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Library, Biosis, Web of Science, Embase, ASCO Abstracts and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Randomized controlled trials on the following comparisons were included: (1) neoadjuvant therapy versus surgery alone and (2) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant radiotherapy. RESULTS: We identified 17 and 5 relevant trials that enrolled 8,568 and 2,393 patients, respectively. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy improved local control (hazard ratio 0.59; 95 % confidence interval 0.48-0.72) compared to surgery alone even after total mesorectal excision, whereas its benefit in overall survival just failed to reach statistical significance (0.93; 0.85-1.00). However, it was associated with increased perioperative mortality (1.48; 1.08-2.03), in particular if a dose of 5 Gy per fraction was administered (1.85; 1.23-2.78). Chemoradiotherapy improved local control as opposed to radiotherapy (0.53; 0.39-0.72), with no impact on perioperative outcome and long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy improves local control in patients with rectal cancer, particularly when chemoradiotherapy is administered. The question if the use of more effective chemotherapy protocols improves overall survival warrants further investigation.


Assuntos
Terapia Neoadjuvante , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Neoplasias Retais/radioterapia , Humanos , Prognóstico , Radioterapia Adjuvante
12.
BMC Cancer ; 13: 131, 2013 Mar 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23510155

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal timing for androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer that have undergone local therapy with curative intent but are proven to have node-positive disease without signs of distant metastases at the time of local therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the benefits and harms of early (at the time of local therapy) versus deferred (at the time of clinical disease progression) androgen suppression therapy for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy. METHODS: The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42011001221; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, as well as reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences, and three trial registers, to identify randomized controlled trials (search update 04/08/2012). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: Four studies including 398 patients were identified for inclusion. Early androgen suppression therapy lead to a significant decrease in overall mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64), and clinical progression at 3 or 9 years (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52 at 3 years and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.67 at 9 years). One study showed an increase of adverse effects with early androgen suppression therapy. All trials had substantial methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The data available suggest an improvement in survival and delayed disease progression but increased adverse events for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy treated with early androgen suppression therapy versus deferred androgen suppression therapy. However, quality of data is low. Randomized controlled trials with blinding of outcome assessment, planned to determine the timing of androgen suppression therapy in node-positive prostate cancer using modern diagnostic imaging modalities, biochemical testing, and standardized follow-up schedules should be conducted to confirm these findings.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antagonistas de Androgênios/administração & dosagem , Antagonistas de Androgênios/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , Linfonodos/patologia , Metástase Linfática , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Neoplasias da Próstata/mortalidade
13.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 13: 131, 2013 Oct 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24160679

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Recent research indicates a high recall in Google Scholar searches for systematic reviews. These reports raised high expectations of Google Scholar as a unified and easy to use search interface. However, studies on the coverage of Google Scholar rarely used the search interface in a realistic approach but instead merely checked for the existence of gold standard references. In addition, the severe limitations of the Google Search interface must be taken into consideration when comparing with professional literature retrieval tools.The objectives of this work are to measure the relative recall and precision of searches with Google Scholar under conditions which are derived from structured search procedures conventional in scientific literature retrieval; and to provide an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific literature retrieval. METHODS: General and MEDLINE-specific search strategies were retrieved from 14 Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic review search strategies were translated to Google Scholar search expression as good as possible under consideration of the original search semantics. The references of the included studies from the Cochrane reviews were checked for their inclusion in the result sets of the Google Scholar searches. Relative recall and precision were calculated. RESULTS: We investigated Cochrane reviews with a number of included references between 11 and 70 with a total of 396 references. The Google Scholar searches resulted in sets between 4,320 and 67,800 and a total of 291,190 hits. The relative recall of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 76.2% and a maximum of 100% (7 searches). The precision of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 0.05% and a maximum of 0.92%. The overall relative recall for all searches was 92.9%, the overall precision was 0.13%. CONCLUSION: The reported relative recall must be interpreted with care. It is a quality indicator of Google Scholar confined to an experimental setting which is unavailable in systematic retrieval due to the severe limitations of the Google Scholar search interface. Currently, Google Scholar does not provide necessary elements for systematic scientific literature retrieval such as tools for incremental query optimization, export of a large number of references, a visual search builder or a history function. Google Scholar is not ready as a professional searching tool for tasks where structured retrieval methodology is necessary.


Assuntos
Ferramenta de Busca/normas , Indexação e Redação de Resumos , Algoritmos , Mineração de Dados/métodos , Humanos , Internet , MEDLINE , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (10): CD006323, 2013 Oct 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24146345

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pelargonium sidoides (P. sidoides), also known as Umckaloabo, is a herbal remedy thought to be effective in the treatment of acute respiratory infections (ARIs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of P. sidoides for the treatment of ARIs in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2013 we searched MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, CINAHL, CCMed, XToxline, Global Health, AMED, Derwent Drug File and Backfile, IPA, ISTPB + ISTP/ISSHP, EMBASE, Cambase, LILACS, PubMed component "Supplied by Publisher", TRIPdatabase, the publisher databases: Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Thieme, Springer, ScienceDirect from Elsevier. We conducted a cited reference search (forward) in Web of Science of relevant papers for inclusion. In addition we searched the study registries ClinicalTrials.gov, Deutsches Register klinischer Studien DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) - WHO ICTRP, Current Controlled Trials and EU Clinical Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of P. sidoides preparations in ARIs compared to placebo or any other treatment. Complete resolution of all symptoms was defined as the primary outcome; in addition, we examined resolution of predefined key symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors (AT, JG, WK) independently extracted and quality scored the data. We performed separate analyses by age group and disease entity. Subanalysis considered type of preparation (liquid, tablets). We examined heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) using a fixed-effect model if heterogeneity was absent (I(2) < 5%; P > 0.1), or a random-effects model in the presence of heterogeneity. If heterogeneity was substantial (I(2) > 50%; P < 0.10), a pooled effect was not calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Of 10 eligible studies eight were included in the analyses; two were of insufficient quality. Three trials (746 patients, low quality of evidence) of efficacy in acute bronchitis in adults showed effectiveness for most outcomes in the liquid preparation but not for tablets. Three other trials (819 children, low quality of evidence) showed similar results for acute bronchitis in children. For both meta-analyses, we did not pool sub totals due to relevant heterogeneity induced by type of preparation.One study in patients with sinusitis (n = 103 adults, very low quality of evidence) showed significant treatment effects (complete resolution at day 21; RR 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.62). One study in the common cold demonstrated efficacy after 10 days, but not five days (very low quality of evidence). We rated the study quality as moderate for all studies (unvalidated outcome assessment, minor attrition problems, investigator-initiated trials only). Based on the funnel plot there was suspicion of publication bias.There were no valid data for the treatment of other acute respiratory tract infections. Adverse events were more common with P. sidoides, but none were serious. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: P. sidoides may be effective in alleviating symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis and the common cold in adults, but doubt exists. It may be effective in relieving symptoms in acute bronchitis in adults and children, and sinusitis in adults. The overall quality of the evidence was considered low for main outcomes in acute bronchitis in children and adults, and very low for acute sinusitis and the common cold. Reliable data on treatment for other ARIs were not identified.


Assuntos
Pelargonium/química , Fitoterapia/métodos , Extratos Vegetais/uso terapêutico , Infecções Respiratórias/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Bronquite/tratamento farmacológico , Criança , Resfriado Comum/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Sinusite/tratamento farmacológico
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (2): CD007476, 2012 Feb 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22336831

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Thalassemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusion. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBMR, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Date of the most recent searches of these databases: 24 June 2010.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 03 November 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria.Two studies compared deferasirox to placebo or standard therapy of deferoxamine (n = 47). The placebo-controlled studies, a pharmacokinetic and a dose escalation study, showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III trials was warranted.Two studies, one phase II study (n = 71) and one phase III study (n = 586) compared deferasirox to standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared; in the phase III trial, similar or superior efficacy for surrogate parameters of ferritin and liver iron concentration could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg/d and 51.6 mg/d respectively. Data on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was significantly better with deferasirox, while rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deferasirox offers an important alternative line of treatment for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy in the long run and will translate to similar benefits as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data on safety, particularly on rare toxicities and long-term safety, are still limited.Therefore, we think that deferasirox should be offered as an alternative to all patients with thalassaemia who either show intolerance to deferoxamine or poor compliance with deferoxamine. In our opinion, data are still too limited to support the general recommendation of deferasirox as first-line treatment instead of deferoxamine. If a strong preference for deferasirox is expressed, it could be offered as first-line option to individual patients after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks.


Assuntos
Benzoatos/uso terapêutico , Quelantes de Ferro/uso terapêutico , Sobrecarga de Ferro/tratamento farmacológico , Talassemia/complicações , Triazóis/uso terapêutico , Benzoatos/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Fase II como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Deferasirox , Desferroxamina/uso terapêutico , Transfusão de Eritrócitos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Quelantes de Ferro/efeitos adversos , Sobrecarga de Ferro/etiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Talassemia/terapia , Triazóis/efeitos adversos
16.
Pain ; 163(4): 610-636, 2022 04 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34326292

RESUMO

ABSTRACT: In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP.


Assuntos
Analgésicos não Narcóticos , Dor Crônica , Dor Lombar , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides , Analgésicos não Narcóticos/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Dor Crônica/induzido quimicamente , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/tratamento farmacológico , Projetos de Pesquisa
17.
Gastroenterology ; 138(5): 1714-26, 2010 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20100481

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prognostic significance of circulating (CTCs) and disseminated tumor cells in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of available studies to assess whether the detection of tumor cells in the blood and bone marrow (BM) of patients diagnosed with primary CRC can be used as a prognostic factor. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Biosis, Science Citation Index, and Embase databases and reference lists of relevant articles (including review articles) for studies that assessed the prognostic relevance of tumor cell detection in the peripheral blood (PB), mesenteric/portal blood (MPB), or BM of patients with CRC. Meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as effect measures. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies, including 3094 patients, were eligible for final analyses. Pooled analyses that combined all sampling sites (PB, MPB, and BM) associated the detection of tumor cells with poor recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 3.24 [95% CI: 2.06-5.10], n = 26, I(2) = 77%) and overall survival (OS) (2.28 [1.55-3.38], n = 21, I(2) = 66%). Stratification by sampling site showed that detection of tumor cells in the PB compartment was a statistically significant prognostic factor (RFS: 3.06 [1.74-5.38], n = 19, I(2) = 78%; OS: 2.70 [1.74-4.20], n = 16, I(2) = 59%) but not in the MPB (RFS: 4.12 [1.01-16.83], n = 8, I(2) = 75%; OS: 4.80 [0.81-28.32], n = 5, I(2) = 82%) or in the BM (RFS: 2.17 [0.94-5.03], n = 4, I(2) = 78%; OS: 1.50 [0.52-4.32], n = 3, I(2) = 84%). CONCLUSION: Detection of CTCs in the PB indicates poor prognosis in patients with primary CRC.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Células Neoplásicas Circulantes/patologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Neoplasias Colorretais/mortalidade , Neoplasias Colorretais/terapia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Análise de Sobrevida , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (2): CD006913, 2011 Feb 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21328288

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The effect of psychological interventions in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions (psychotherapy, patient education, relaxation techniques) on health related quality of life, coping, emotional state and disease activity in IBD. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the specialized register of the IBD/FBD Group, CENTRAL (Issue 5, 2010) and from inception to April 2010: Medline, Embase, LILACS, Psyndex, CINAHL, PsyInfo, CCMed, SOMED and Social SciSearch. Conference abstracts and reference lists were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, quasi-randomized and non randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions in children or adults with IBD with a minimum follow up time of 2 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and study quality was independently assessed by two raters. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were eligible for inclusion (1745 participants, 8 RCT, 4 QRCT, 8 NRCT; 19 in adults, 2 in adolescents). Most studies used multimodular approaches. The risk of bias was high for all studies.In adults, psychotherapy had no effect on quality of life at around 12 months (3 studies, 235 patients, SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19), emotional status (depression, 4 studies, 266 patients, SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.27) or proportion of patients not in remission (5 studies, 287 patients, OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48). Results were similar at 3 to 8 months. There was no evidence for statistical heterogeneity or subgroup effects based on type of disease or intensity of the therapy. In adolescents, there were positive short term effects of psychotherapy on most outcomes assessed including quality of life (2 studies, 71 patients, SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.18) and depression (1 study, 41 patients, SMD -0.62; 95% CI -1.25 to 0.01).Educational interventions were ineffective with respect to quality of life at 12 months (5 studies, 947 patients, SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.24), depression (3 studies, 378 patients, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.12) and proportion of patients not in remission (3 studies, 434 patients, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.53). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for efficacy of psychological therapy in adult patients with IBD in general. In adolescents, psychological interventions may be beneficial, but the evidence is limited. Further evidence is needed to assess the efficacy of these therapies in subgroups identified as being in need of psychological interventions, and to identify what type of therapy maybe most useful.


Assuntos
Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/terapia , Psicoterapia/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Colite Ulcerativa/psicologia , Colite Ulcerativa/terapia , Doença de Crohn/psicologia , Doença de Crohn/terapia , Depressão/terapia , Humanos , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/psicologia , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e049228, 2021 08 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34408052

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders. CHARTING METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain. RESULTS: 93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.


Assuntos
Disseminação de Informação , Humanos
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (11): CD007461, 2010 Nov 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21069694

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia most patients require supportive therapy including repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In combination with increased iron absorption, this contributes to the accumulation of iron resulting in secondary iron overload and the risk of organ dysfunction and reduced life expectancy. Since the human body has no natural means of getting rid of excess iron, iron chelation therapy is usually recommended. However, whether the new oral chelator deferasirox leads to relevant benefit is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with myelodysplastic syndrome and iron overload. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: Current Controlled Trials: www.controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov: www.clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP: www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Most recent searches of these databases: June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy/placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No studies eligible for inclusion in this review were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were included in this review. However, we identified one ongoing study comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We planned to report evidence from randomised clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of deferasirox compared to either placebo/no treatment or other chelating regimens such as deferoxamine in people with myelodysplastic syndrome. However, no completed randomised trials addressing this question could be identified.One ongoing randomised study comparing deferasirox with placebo was identified and preliminary data will hopefully be available soon. These results will be important to inform physicians and patients on the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option.


Assuntos
Benzoatos/uso terapêutico , Terapia por Quelação/métodos , Quelantes de Ferro/uso terapêutico , Sobrecarga de Ferro/tratamento farmacológico , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/complicações , Triazóis/uso terapêutico , Deferasirox , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA