Noninvasive Brain Stimulations for Unilateral Spatial Neglect after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Nonrandomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is the most frequent perceptual disorder after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the rehabilitation process to modify cortical excitability and improve perception and functional capacity. Objective: To assess the impact of NIBS on USN after stroke. Methods: An extensive search was conducted up to July 2016. Studies were selected if they were controlled and noncontrolled trials examining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and theta burst stimulation (TBS) in USN after stroke, with outcomes measured by standardized USN and functional tests. Results: Twelve RCTs (273 participants) and 4 non-RCTs (94 participants) proved eligible. We observed a benefit in overall USN measured by the line bisection test with NIBS in comparison to sham (SMD -2.35, 95% CI -3.72, -0.98; p = 0.0001); the rTMS yielded results that were consistent with the overall meta-analysis (SMD -2.82, 95% CI -3.66, -1.98; p = 0.09). The rTMS compared with sham also suggested a benefit in overall USN measured by Motor-Free Visual Perception Test at both 1 Hz (SMD 1.46, 95% CI 0.73, 2.20; p < 0.0001) and 10 Hz (SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.48, 1.89; p = 0.54). There was also a benefit in overall USN measured by Albert's test and the line crossing test with 1 Hz rTMS compared to sham (SMD 2.04, 95% CI 1.14, 2.95; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The results suggest a benefit of NIBS on overall USN, and we conclude that rTMS is more efficacious compared to sham for USN after stroke.

Association between pre-operative statin use and major cardiovascular complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: the VISION study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of pre-operative statin therapy on cardiovascular events in the first 30-days after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an international, prospective, cohort study of patients who were ≥45 years having in-patient non-cardiac surgery. We estimated the probability of receiving statins pre-operatively using a multivariable logistic model and conducted a propensity score analysis to correct for confounding. A total of 15 478 patients were recruited at 12 centres in eight countries from August 2007 to January 2011. The matched population consisted of 2845 patients (18.4%) treated with a statin and 4492 (29.0%) controls. The pre-operative use of statins was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS), or stroke at 30 days [relative risk (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.95; P = 0.007]. Statins were also associated with a significant lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.83; P = 0.003), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76; P = 0.004), and MINS (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of myocardial infarction or stroke. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, pre-operative statin therapy was independently associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes at 30 days. These results require confirmation in a large randomized trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00512109.

Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Aspiration thrombectomy prior to percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trials of aspiration thrombectomy (AT) prior to primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) have shown apparently inconsistent results and therefore generated uncertainty and controversy. To summarize the effects of AT prior to PCI versus conventional PCI in STEMI patients. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL to June 2015 and review of reference lists of previous reviews. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AT prior to PCI with conventional PCI alone. Pairs of reviewers independently screened eligible articles; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Among 73 potential articles identified, 20 trials including 21,660 patients were eligible; data were complete for 20,866 patients. Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a non statistically significant decrease in overall mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95 % confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.01, risk difference (RD) 4/1,000 over 6 months), no impact on recurrent MI (RR 0.94, 95 % CI, 0.79 to 1.12) or major bleeding (RR 1.02, 95 % CI, 0.78 to 1.35), and an increase in stroke (RR 1.56, 95 % CI, 1.09 to 2.24, RD 3/1,000 over 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests aspiration thrombectomy is associated with a possible small decrease in mortality (4 less deaths/1000 over 6 months) and a small increase in stroke (3 more strokes/1000 over 6 months). Because absolute effects are very small and closely balanced, thrombectomy prior to primary PCI should not be used as a routine strategy.

Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To map the available methodological guidelines and documents for conducting and reporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA) during health technologies' life cycle; and to identify methodological guidelines for BRA that could serve as the basis for the development of a BRA guideline for the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Searches were conducted in three main sources up to March 2023: (1) electronic databases; (2) grey literature (48 HTA and regulatory organisations) and (3) manual search and contacting experts. We included methodological guidelines or publications presenting methods for conducting or reporting BRA of any type of health technologies in any context of the technology's life cycle. Selection process and data charting were conducted by independent reviewers. We provided a structured narrative synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: From the 83 eligible documents, six were produced in the HTA context, 30 in the regulatory and 35 involved guidance for BRA throughout the technology's life cycle. We identified 129 methodological approaches for BRA in the documents. The most commonly referred to descriptive frameworks were the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk and Linked decisions and the Benefit-Risk Action Team. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most commonly cited quantitative framework. We also identified the most cited metric indices, estimation and utility survey techniques that could be used for BRA. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for BRA in HTA are less established. The findings of this review, however, will support and inform the elaboration of the Brazilian methodological guideline on BRA for HTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V.

Safety and Efficacy of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review. / Segurança e Eficácia da Terapia com Células-tronco Mesenquimais Derivadas do Tecido Adiposo para Cardiopatia Isquêmica: Revisão Sistemática.

BACKGROUND: Cell therapy using adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) shows great potential as a treatment for cardiovascular diseases. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to describe the safety and efficacy of ADSCs in ischemic heart disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS (from inception to March 2024) for clinical studies involving ADSCs in patients with ischemic heart disease. We excluded studies involving patients with other types of heart disease, studies using mesenchymal stem cells derived from other tissues, as well as ongoing studies. Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials, using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria modified by McMaster University and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). We used a narrative synthesis to present the results. RESULTS: Ten studies (comprising 29 publications) met our inclusion criteria, including 8 randomized controlled trials and 2 uncontrolled trials. No severe adverse events associated with ADSC therapy were reported. While most efficacy endpoints did not reach statistical significance, there were reports of improved ischemic area, functional capacity, symptoms, and contractility in patients treated with ADSCs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our review suggest that ADSC therapy is generally safe for patients with ischemic heart disease. However, further investigation is warranted to confirm its efficacy, particularly with larger clinical trials and in specific conditions where improvements in microcirculation may have a notable impact on clinical outcomes.

FUNDAMENTO: A terapia celular utilizando células-tronco mesenquimais derivadas do tecido adiposo (ADSC, sigla em inglês) apresenta grande potencial como tratamento para doenças cardiovasculares. OBJETIVO: Realizamos uma revisão sistemática para descrever a segurança e a eficácia das ADSC na cardiopatia isquêmica. MÉTODOS: Pesquisamos na PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL e LILACS (desde o início até março de 2024) por estudos clínicos envolvendo ADSC em pacientes com cardiopatia isquêmica. Excluímos estudos envolvendo pacientes com outros tipos de doenças cardíacas, estudos utilizando células-tronco mesenquimais derivadas de outros tecidos, bem como estudos em andamento. Dois revisores independentes realizaram a triagem das citações recuperadas, extraíram dados relevantes e avaliaram o risco de viés nos ensaios incluídos, utilizando os critérios da Colaboração Cochrane modificados pela Universidade McMaster e o Índice Metodológico para Estudos Não-Randomizados (MINORS). Utilizamos uma síntese narrativa para apresentar os resultados. RESULTADOS: Dez estudos (compreendendo 29 publicações) preencheram nossos critérios de inclusão, incluindo 8 ensaios controlados randomizados e 2 ensaios não controlados. Não foram relatados eventos adversos graves associados à terapia com ADSC. Embora a maioria dos desfechos de eficácia não tenha alcançado significância estatística, houve relatos de melhora da área isquêmica, capacidade funcional, sintomas e contratilidade em pacientes tratados com ADSC. CONCLUSÕES: Os resultados da nossa revisão sugerem que a terapia com ADSC é geralmente segura para pacientes com cardiopatia isquêmica. Contudo, são necessárias mais investigações para confirmar a sua eficácia, particularmente em ensaios clínicos de maior escala e em condições específicas onde as melhorias na microcirculação podem ter um impacto notável nos desfechos clínicos.

Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Benefit-risk assessment (BRA) is used in multiple phases along the health technology's life-cycle to evaluate the balance between the benefits and risks, as it is fundamental to all stakeholders. BRA and its methodological approaches have been applied primarily in the context of regulatory agencies. However, BRA's application and extent in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies remain less clear. Our goal is to perform a scoping review to identify and map methodological guidelines and publications on methods of BRA. This will be done considering the different phases of the life-cycle of health technologies to underline both the depth and extent of research concerning BRA, especially in the context of HTA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol was developed following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the updated guidelines by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include methodological publications that provide recommendations or guidelines on methods for BRA. We will conduct electronic searches on Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases; manual searches on the main websites of HTA bodies and drug regulatory organisations; and contact experts in the field. Systematic extraction forms will be used to screen and assess the identified publications by independent assessors. We will provide a qualitative synthesis using descriptive statistics and visual tools. Results will be summarised in systematic evidence tables and comparative evidence scoping charts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will use data publicly available and does not require ethics approval. The results of this scoping review will contribute to scientific knowledge and act as a basis for methodologists, guideline developers and researchers for the development of BRA to inform regulatory decisions, reimbursement and coverage decision making. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conferences, policy briefs and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V).

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. AREAS COVERED: Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. EXPERT OPINION: There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Effects of 3D image-guided brachytherapy compared to 2D conventional brachytherapy on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D BT) compared to bi-dimensional BT (2D BT) on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and LILACS for studies assessing the effects of 3D BT versus 2D BT on clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias from eligible studies. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves considering the number of events, their timing and the followup of censored patients. We conducted meta-analyses of HR using the inverse-variance random-effects method. Risk Difference (RD) for toxicities were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method. We used the GRADE system to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies involving 4287 patients were included. The meta-analyses assessing the effect of 3D BT versus 2D BT on overall survival resulted in a HR of 0.78 (95%CI 0.62-0.98), HR of 0.75 (95%CI 0.62-0.90) for pelvic disease-free survival, HR of 0.93 (95%CI 0.81-1.06) for metastatic disease-free survival, and HR of 0.77 (95%CI 0.59-0.99) for local control. Grade 3-4 global and gastrointestinal toxicities were, respectively, 9% lower (95%CI 6% to 11%) and 5% lower (95%CI 2% to 8%) in patients receiving 3D BT versus 2D BT. Certainty of evidence was very low for all assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study may suggest a benefit of 3D BT over conventional 2D BT on important clinical outcomes.