Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. METHODS: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Tramadol for management of fibromyalgia pain and symptoms: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a heterogeneous condition that appears to be associated with physiological and biochemical disturbances of pain modulation, and that consequently affects numerous other facets of life. Tramadol is currently being explored as an option to manage fibromyalgia pain and other symptoms because of its inhibitory activity of reuptake of neurotransmitters, but its safety and efficacy have not yet been established in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tramadol on the management of symptoms of the syndrome. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Opengrey, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for randomised controlled trials analysing the association between tramadol used for fibromyalgia either single-agent or in combination with other drugs. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for all included studies. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Four RCTs comprising 459 patients were included. Tramadol-either as a single-agent or in combination with an antidepressant or analgesic-had a positive effect on pain. Tramadol combined with analgesic showed improved quality of life over placebo as measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire at 91 days. However, this difference did not hold for tramadol as a single agent against placebo. The evidence in these articles was rated "low" using the GRADE approach. No serious adverse events were reported. No improvement in depression and quality of sleep were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found a dearth of clinical trials on tramadol in patients with fibromyalgia. Although the combination of monoamine and opioid mechanism of tramadol has shown positive effects for fibromyalgia, the available evidence is not sufficient to support or refute the use of tramadol in clinical practice for pain or symptom management. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017062139.

Interventions for morphea.

BACKGROUND: Morphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened cutaneous areas. Morphea has different clinical features according to the subtype and stage of evolution of the disease. There is currently no consensus on optimal interventions for morphea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for people with any form of morphea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and five trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of topical, intralesional, or systemic treatments (isolated or combined) in anyone who has been clinically diagnosed by a medical practitioner with any form of morphea. Eligible controls were placebo, no intervention, any other treatment, or different doses or duration of a treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement of disease activity and improvement of disease damage. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials, with a total of 429 randomised participants, aged between 3 and 76 years. There were juvenile and adult participants; over half were female, and the majority had circumscribed morphea, followed by linear scleroderma. The settings of the studies (where described) included a dermatologic centre, a national laboratory centre, paediatric rheumatology and dermatology centres, and a university hospital or medical centre.The studies evaluated heterogenous therapies for different types of morphea, covering a wide range of comparisons. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses. Seven studies investigated topical medications, two evaluated intralesional medications, and five investigated systemic medications. The study duration ranged from seven weeks to 15 months from baseline.We present here results for our primary outcomes for our four key comparisons. All of these results are based on low-quality evidence.The included studies were at high risk of performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.Global improvement of disease activity or damage after treatment may be higher with oral methotrexate (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg, once a week, for 12 months or until disease flare) plus oral prednisone (1 mg/kg a day, maximum of 50 mg, in a single morning dose, for three months, and one month with gradually decreased dose until discontinuation) than with placebo plus oral prednisone in children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 4.45; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT); 70 participants, all juvenile). This outcome was measured 12 months from the start of treatment or until flare of the disease. Data were not available separately for each morphea type. There may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event with oral methotrexate (26/46) or placebo (11/24) (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT; 70 participants assessed during the 12-month follow-up). Adverse events related to methotrexate included alopecia, nausea, headache, fatigue and hepatotoxicity, whilst adverse events related to prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain (more than 5% of body weight) and striae rubrae.One three-armed RCT compared the following treatments: medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1; low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1; and narrowband UVB phototherapy. There may be little or no difference between treatments in global improvement of disease activity or damage, as assessed through the modified skin score (where high values represent a worse outcome): medium-dose UVA-1 phototherapy versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD 1.60, 95% CI -1.70 to 4.90 (44 participants); narrowband UVB phototherapy versus medium-dose UVA-1 group: MD -1.70, 95% CI -5.27 to 1.87 (35 participants); and narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.29 (45 participants). This RCT included children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea), who received phototherapy five times a week, for eight weeks. Outcomes were measured at eight weeks from the start of treatment.Safety data, measured throughout treatment, from the same RCT (62 participants) showed that treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy may cause mild tanning compared to narrowband UVB: narrowband UVB versus medium-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42; 35 participants; narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41; 45 participants. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium and low dose UVA-1 phototherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 44 participants). Transient erythema was reported in three participants with narrowband UVB and no participants in the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo plus oral prednisone, oral methotrexate plus oral prednisone may improve disease activity or damage in juvenile active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed), but there may be a slightly increased chance of experiencing at least one adverse event.When medium-dose UVA-1 (50 J/cm²), low-dose UVA-1 (20 J/cm²), and narrowband UVB were compared against each other in treating children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea), there may be little or no difference between these treatments on global improvement of disease activity or damage. UVA-1 phototherapy may cause more mild tanning than narrowband UVB, but there may be no difference between medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. These results are based on low-quality evidence.Limitations of data and analyses include risk of bias and imprecision (small number of participants or events and wide confidence intervals). We encourage multicentre RCTs to increase sample size and evaluate, with validated tools, different treatment responses according to the subtypes of morphea and age groups.

Intravenous zoledronate for postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review and metanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD). RESULTS: Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women. CONCLUSION: This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

Stenting or angioplasty for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the cornerstone treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) remains anticoagulation, clinicians perform stenting or angioplasty (SA) in particular patients. To assess the effects of SA in this setting, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Based on the Cochrane standards, we searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS and IBECS databases, and trial registries. Our primary outcomes were post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 7 randomized controlled trial (1485 participants). There was no clinically significant difference between SA and best medical practice (BMP) for the additional treatment of acute DVT regarding PTS (standardized mean difference -7.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.13 to -3.61; very low-certainty) and VTE (risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% CI 0.28-5.07, very low-certainty), and no deaths. Compared to BMP, the SA plus BMP and thrombolysis results in little to no difference in PTS (mean difference [MD] -1.07, 95% CI -1.12 to -1.02, moderate-certainty), VTE (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.95-2.31, low-certainty), and mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.34-2.52, low-certainty). There was no clinical difference between stenting and BMP for chronic DVT regarding PTS (MD 2.73, 95% CI -2.10 to 7.56, very low certainty) and no VTE and death events. CONCLUSIONS: SA results in little to no difference in PTS, VTE and mortality in acute DVT compared to BMP. The evidence regarding SA in chronic DVT and whether SA, compared to BMP and thrombolysis, decreases PTS and VTE in acute DVT is uncertain. Open Science Framework (osf.io/f2dm6).

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are widely used for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSCR), but their effectiveness remains unclear. This research was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of this drugs for cCSCR. METHODS: This is a review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing MRAs to placebo in adults with cCSCR, using the effects of MRAs on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events as primary outcomes and the effects of MRAs on anatomical parameters as secondary outcomes: central subfield thickness (CST), subretinal fluid height (SFH) and central choroidal thickness (CCT). Our all-language online search included Medline (via PubMed), Central, Embase, Lilacs, Ibecs, and RCT registers platforms, as late as May 2021. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2) to assess the methodological quality of each study and synthesized the results in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search identified 302 records, five of which were eligible, totaling 225 cCSCR patients (aged 45-62 years; M/F ratio 3.1:1) treated for 1 to 12 months with spironolactone (50 mg/day) or eplerenone (50 mg/day) vs. placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests MRAs result in little to no improvement in BCVA compared to placebo (SMD 0.22; 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.48; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 218; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that, when compared to placebo, MRAs have a very uncertain impact on adverse effects (no meta-analysis was performed), and CST (MD 18.1; 95% CI - 113.04 to 76.84; participants = 145; studies = 2; I2 = 68%). MRAs also result in little to no difference in SFH (SMD - 0.35; 95% CI - 0.95 to 0.26; studies = 5; comparisons = 6; participants = 221; I2 = 76%; moderate certainty) and CCT (MD - 21.23; 95% CI - 64.69 to 22.24; participants = 206; studies = 4; comparisons = 5; I2 = 85%; low certainty). CONCLUSION: MRAs have little to no effect on BCVA. Evidence for adverse events and CST is very uncertain. MRAs also have little to no effect on SFH and CCT. These findings should be considered when prescribing MRAs for cCSCR. This research was previous registration in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42020182601).

Recommendations for evaluation and diagnosis of extra-glandular manifestations of primary sjogren syndrome: results of an epidemiologic systematic review/meta-analysis and a consensus guideline from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (articular, pulmonary and renal).

Sjogren's Syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and other organs, associated with sicca syndrome but also with systemic involvement with varying degrees of severity. Despite their importance, these systemic manifestations are not routinely evaluated and there is no homogenous approach to their diagnosis or evaluation. To close this gap, a panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the identification of epidemiologic and clinical features of these manifestations and made recommendations based on the findings. Agreement between the experts was achieved using the Delphi method. The first part of this guideline summarizes the most important topics, and 11 recommendations are provided for the articular, pulmonary, and renal care of SS patients.

Recommendations for evaluation and diagnosis of extra-glandular manifestations of primary Sjögren syndrome: results of an epidemiologic systematic review/meta-analysis and a consensus guideline from the Brazilian society of rheumatology (hepatic, gastrointestinal and pancreatic).

Sjogren's syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and other organs, associated with sicca syndrome but also with systemic involvement with varying degrees of severity. Despite their importance, some systemic manifestations, mainly liver, gastrointestinal, and pancreatic are not routinely evaluated. To address these manifestations, the Sjögren's Syndrome Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a broad systematic review of the literature on studies investigating prevalence and diagnosis of these symptoms in Sjogren´s patients and made recommendations based on the findings. Agreement between the experts was achieved using the Delphi method. This is the second part of this guideline, providing 6 recommendations for liver, gastrointestinal, and pancreatic care of SS patients.

2021 recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the gynecological and obstetric care of patients with Sjogren's syndrome.

Sjogren's syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands and other organs. Women with SS often experience gynecological symptoms due to the disease and need extra care regarding their sexual activity, reproductive health and during pregnancy, conditions that are not properly conducted in the clinical practice. To cover this gap, a panel of experts from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the identification of symptoms, diagnosis, monitoring, prognosis, and treatment of these manifestations. A Focus Group meeting was held and included experts in the field and methodologists, based on a previously developed script, with themes related to the objective of the study. The most important topics were summarized and 11 recommendations were provided.

Effects of the pilates method on kinesiophobia associated with chronic non-specific low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic low back pain with higher levels of kinesiophobia have a 41% greater risk of developing a physical disability. The kinesiophobia model suggests that patients fear movements because of pain, associating movement with worsening of their state. Studies that apply the Pilates method for chronic low back pain achieve positive results in reducing pain and disability, and moderate results regarding kinesiophobia. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effects of the Pilates method on kinesiophobia associated with chronic non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched from August to October 2018: MEDLINE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL), without restriction of language and year of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of the Pilates method in the treatment of kinesiophobia in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. A third author was consulted in case of disagreements. The primary outcome was kinesiophobia as evaluated by the Tampa scale. RESULTS: Our electronic searches resulted in 314 studies; 288 studies were excluded and 27 were selected for reading in full-text. Five articles were included in this review and four in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: There is a favorable effect of the Pilates method compared to minimal intervention or no treatment in reducing kinesiophobia associated with chronic non-specific low back pain, with a moderate quality of evidence. DESCRIPTORS: Low Back Pain, Exercise Movement Techniques, Exercises, Pilates-Based.

Bilingualism for delaying the onset of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of bilingualism compared to monolingualism on the clinical manifestation of Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We searched the databases: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and LILACS, and searched by hand and in gray literature for studies published before September 2019. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Two reviewers independently searched for studies, extracted data, and performed the quality assessment. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this review. Data from meta-analyses suggest that bilingual individuals with Alzheimer's disease exhibit symptoms (694 participants; mean difference (MD) (4.05 years; 95% CI: 1.87-6.22 and are diagnosed later (1012 participants; MD 2.0 years; 95% CI: 0.08-3.92) than monolingual participants. CONCLUSION: Bilingualism may delay the manifestation of symptoms and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Further studies with more rigorous methodology are needed to improve the precision of the results.

COVID-19 and patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing pharmacological treatments: a rapid living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are at increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID present higher risk of worse outcomes when diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review conducted in the medical school of the Federal University of São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, L·OVE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP for studies evaluating patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence, following the Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 1,498 references, from which one cohort study was included. This compared patients with and without rheumatic diseases (RD) who all had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Those with RD seemed to have higher chances of hospitalization and mortality, but no statistical difference was detected between the groups: hospitalization: odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.29; mortality rate: OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.33 to 7.11 (very low certainty of evidence). Patients with RD were three times more likely to require admission to intensive care units (ICUs), with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), than those without RD: OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.35 to 10.26 (for both outcomes; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for IMID seem to present higher chances of requiring admission to ICUs, with IMV. Additional high-quality studies are needed to analyze the effects of different treatments for IMID.

SARS-CoV-2 and arbovirus infection: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER IN THE PROSPERO DATABASE: CRD42020183460.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%-99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%-23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%-17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%-17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.83-1.03 × 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54-45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of Kinesio Taping (KT) in patients with nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: KT is widely used in patients with low back pain. METHODS: We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, and LILACS up to February 26, 2018. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain that compared KT to no intervention or placebo as well as RCTs that compared KT combined with exercise against exercise alone. The methodological quality and statistical reporting of the eligible trials were measured by the 11-item PEDro scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE classification. We considered pain intensity and disability as the primary outcomes. Whenever possible, the data were pooled through meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs for this systematic review (pooled n = 743). Two clinical trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to no intervention at the short-term follow-up. Four studies compared KT to placebo (pooled n = 287) at short-term follow-up and two trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to placebo at intermediate-term follow-up. Five trials (pooled n = 296) compared KT combined with exercises or electrotherapy to exercises or spinal manipulation alone. No statistically significant difference was found for most comparisons. CONCLUSION: Very low to moderate quality evidence shows that KT was no better than any other intervention for most the outcomes assessed in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. We found no evidence to support the use of KT in clinical practice for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Recommendations from the Brazilian society of rheumatology for the diagnosis of Sjögren's syndrome (Part I): glandular manifestations (systematic review).

BACKGROUND: Primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) is a systemic immune-mediated disease whose main characteristic is exocrine gland inflammation and, subsequent reduction in tear and saliva production. A delayed diagnosis is common due to the nonspecific clinical manifestations of disease. The aim of the present study was to develop recommendations for the diagnosis of glandular manifestations of pSS based on evidence and expert opinion. We conducted a systematic literature review to retrieve the best evidence available on the accuracy of diagnostic tests for pSS. We also held two in-person meetings with experts (rheumatologists, pathologists, ophthalmologists and dentists) to establish their level of agreement using the Delphi method. Ultimately, we generated 18 recommendations that aim to facilitate the diagnosis of the glandular manifestations of pSS. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of glandular manifestations of pSS is complex and multidisciplinary. It requires specific knowledge in the field of ophthalmology, immunology, pathology and imaging, making it compulsory for the rheumatologist to work with professionals from these different areas in order to improve accuracy and early diagnosis. Glandular dysfunction tests, ANA, RF, Anti-Ro, protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, blood count, C-Reactive protein, complement, testing for syphilis and viruses (HCV, HIV) and SGUS should be investigated when dryness or systemic manifestation are present. Minor salivary gland biopsy is recommended for all anti-Ro negative or incomplete criteria cases.

Intravenous zoledronate for postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review and metanalysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis. DESIGN AND SETTINGS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD). RESULTS: Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women. CONCLUSION: This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain in Elderly Subjects With Defective Endogenous Pain-Inhibitory Systems: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been the main cause behind chronic pain and disabilities in the elderly population. The traditional treatment for knee OA pain currently concerns a number of combinations of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. However, such combinations have displayed little effects on a significant group of subjects. In addition to this, pharmacological treatments often cause adverse effects, which limits their use on this population. Previous studies showed that chronic knee OA pain may be associated with maladaptive compensatory plasticity in pain-related neural central circuits indexed by a defective descending pain-inhibitory system. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can revert some of these maladaptive changes, thus decreasing chronic pain sensation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of anodal tDCS stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1) has positive effects on chronic neuropathic pain. Yet, data on OA pain in elderly patients, including its effects on the endogenous pain-inhibitory system, remain limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in reducing pain intensity caused by knee OA in elderly subjects with defective endogenous pain-inhibitory systems. METHODS: We designed a randomized, sham-controlled, single-center, double-blinded clinical trial. Patients with knee OA who have maintained a chronic pain level during the previous 6 months and report a pain score of 4 or more on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain in that period will undergo a conditioned pain modulation (CPM) task. Participants who present a reduced CPM response, defined as a decrease in NRS during the CPM task of less than 10%, and meet all of the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to receive 15 sessions of 2 mA active or sham tDCS for 20 minutes. A sample size of 94 subjects was calculated. The Brief Pain Inventory pain items will be used to assess pain intensity as our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include pain impact on functioning, mobility performance, quality of life, CPM, pressure pain threshold, touch-test sensory evaluation, and safety. Follow-up visits will be performed 2, 4, and 8 weeks following intervention. The data will be analyzed using the principle of intention-to-treat. RESULTS: This study was approved by the institutional review board with the protocol number 1685/2016. The enrollment started in April 2018; at the time of publication of this protocol, 25 subjects have been enrolled. We estimate we will complete the enrollment process within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial will provide relevant data to evaluate if anodal tDCS stimulation over M1 can decrease chronic knee OA pain in elderly subjects with defective CPM. In addition, this trial will advance the investigation of the role of central sensitization in knee OA and evaluate how tDCS stimulation may affect it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03117231; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03117231 (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/73WM1LCdJ). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/11660.