Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Spinal Cord ; 57(2): 134-140, 2019 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30089892

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the survival outcomes in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). SETTING: A teaching hospital in Brazil. METHODS: A total of 434 patients diagnosed with TSCI (2004-2014) were included. Overall survival, standardized mortality ratios (SMR), and causes of death were assessed by Student's t-test, χ2 test, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional-hazards regression. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 4.8 years (±3.3 years). Individuals with tetraplegia had a median survival of 11 years, with participants in the paraplegia group not reaching median survival. The overall mortality rate was 37 per 1000 person-years. Age-adjusted SMR was 28.8 (95% CI: 22.8-36). There were 77 deaths with 56 defined causes, of which pneumonia was the most frequent (35.7%). Combined infectious etiologies caused 55.3% of deaths. Multivariate analysis revealed higher mortality among individuals with tetraplegia vs. paraplegia in the first 2 years post injury (HR = 8.28, 95% CI: 2.76-24.80), after 2 years post injury (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.31-4.24), and in all years combined (HR = 3.36, 95% CI: 2.04-5.52). CONCLUSION: Mortality among patients with TSCI was 28.8 times higher than in the reference population. In more than half of the cases, the cause of death was linked to infectious diseases. Pneumonia caused two times more deaths in individuals with tetraplegia than in individuals with paraplegia, with a higher impact in the first 2 years post injury. Reported findings indicate the need for a surveillance and prevention program with emphasis on vaccination and respiratory rehabilitation.


Subject(s)
Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Spinal Cord Injuries/epidemiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/mortality , Adult , Age Factors , Brazil/epidemiology , Cause of Death , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Regression Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
2.
Rehabil Oncol ; 42(2): 91-99, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38912164

ABSTRACT

Background: Rehabilitation therapy is important to treat physical and functional impairments that may occur in individuals receiving physically taxing, yet potentially curative hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). However, there is scarce data on how rehabilitation is delivered during HSCT in real-life setting. Our objective is to assess the rehabilitation practices for adult patients hospitalized for HSCT in the United States. Methods: A 48-question online survey with cancer centers with the top 10% HSCT volumes (per American registries). We obtained data on patient characteristics, rehabilitation therapy details (timing, indication, administering providers), physical function objective and subjective outcome measures, and therapy activity precautions. Results: Fourteen (out of 21) institutions were included. Rehabilitation therapy referrals occurred at admission for all patients at 35.7% of the centers for: functional decline (92.9%), fall risk (71.4%), and discharge planning (71.4%). Participating institutions had physical therapists (92.9%), occupational therapists (85.7%), speech language pathologists (64.3%) and therapy aides (35.7%) in their rehabilitation team. Approximately 71% of centers used objective functional measures including sit-to-stand tests (50.0%), balance measures (42.9%), and six-minute walk/gait speed (both 35.7%). Monitoring of blood counts to determine therapy modalities frequently occurred and therapies held for low platelet or hemoglobin values; but absolute neutrophil values were not a barrier to participate in resistance or aerobic therapies (42.9%). Discussion: Rehabilitation practices during HSCT varied among the largest volume cancer centers in the United States, but most centers provided skilled therapy, utilized objective, clinician and patient reported outcomes, and monitored blood counts for safety of therapy administration.

3.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 149(8): 743-753, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37382963

ABSTRACT

Importance: Head and neck cancer-associated lymphedema (HNCaL) affects up to 90% of survivors of head and neck cancer and is a substantial contributor to disability following head and neck cancer treatment. Despite the prevalence and morbidity associated with HNCaL, rehabilitation interventions are not well studied. Objective: To identify and appraise the current evidence for rehabilitation interventions in HNCaL. Evidence Review: Five electronic databases were searched systematically from inception to January 3, 2023, for studies on HNCaL rehabilitation interventions. Study screening, data extraction, quality rating, and risk of bias assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Findings: Of 1642 citations identified, 23 studies (1.4%; n = 2147 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Six studies (26.1%) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 17 (73.9%) were observational studies. Five of the 6 RCTs were published during 2020 to 2022. Most studies had fewer than 50 participants (5 of 6 RCTs; 13 of 17 observational studies). Studies were categorized by intervention type, including standard lymphedema therapy (11 studies [47.8%]) and adjunct therapy (12 studies [52.2%]). Lymphedema therapy interventions included standard complete decongestive therapy (CDT) (2 RCTs, 5 observational studies), modified CDT (3 observational studies), therapy setting (1 RCT, 2 observational studies), adherence (2 observational studies), early manual lymphatic drainage (1 RCT), and inclusion of focused exercise (1 RCT). Adjunct therapy interventions included advanced pneumatic compression devices (APCDs) (1 RCT, 5 observational studies), kinesio taping (1 RCT), photobiomodulation (1 observational study), acupuncture/moxibustion (1 observational study), and sodium selenite (1 RCT, 2 observational studies). Serious adverse events were either not found (9 [39.1%]) or not reported (14 [60.9%]). Low-quality evidence suggested the benefit of standard lymphedema therapy, particularly in the outpatient setting and with at least partial adherence. High-quality evidence was found for adjunct therapy with kinesio taping. Low-quality evidence also suggested that APCDs may be beneficial. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic review suggest that rehabilitation interventions for HNCaL, including standard lymphedema therapy with kinesio taping and APCDs, appear to be safe and beneficial. However, more prospective, controlled, and adequately powered studies are needed to clarify the ideal type, timing, duration, and intensity of lymphedema therapy components before treatment guidelines can be established.


Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms , Lymphedema , Humans , Lymphedema/etiology , Lymphedema/therapy , Head and Neck Neoplasms/complications , Exercise , Survivors , Observational Studies as Topic
4.
Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep ; 10(4): 339-344, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36466557

ABSTRACT

Purpose of Review: Our aim is to provide a historical review of the implementation of a cancer rehabilitation center in Brazil, active since 2008. We expect this data to support the implementation of other centers both in Brazil and worldwide. Recent Findings: Cancer rehabilitation delivery is fragmented and punctuated in most cases, and cancer rehabilitation centers are rare. Data on how to establish rehabilitation centers could facilitate the implementation of new centers. We provide data on what was our strategy for hiring, establishing treatment protocols, barriers, and facilitators. We also provide figures on the number of each rehabilitation specialist, as well as the general standard operating procedures of our rehabilitation center, among other features. Summary: Establishing cancer rehabilitation centers in a middle-income country is feasible. We expect that our experience may facilitate the establishment of new cancer rehabilitation services and the improvement of current ones.

5.
Pain Physician ; 17(1): E45-60, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24452657

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low back pain with or without radiculopathy is an important cause of disability and economic expenditure. However, many patients are not meeting optimal pain control through existing treatments. Recent studies have linked nerve growth factor (NGF) and the pathophysiology of persistent pain. Anti-NGF could be an alternative drug treatment for low back pain. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review the efficacy and safety of anti-NGF in the treatment of low back pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature with no language, date or publication status restriction, using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the clinicaltrials.gov database. Additional literature was retrieved by conferring with experts in the field or reviewing bibliographies and annals of meetings and congresses. Search terms included "monoclonal antibodies," "nerve growth factor," "anti-ngf," "fulranumab," "tanezumab," "sciatica," "back pain," and "spine." STUDY DESIGN: Inclusion criteria were observational studies with safety as an outcome and randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials studying the efficacy and/or the safety of anti-NGF drugs on low back pain. Exclusion criteria included patients with autoimmune conditions or osteoporosis. Studies were assessed independently by 2 authors regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk of bias, clinical relevance, and quality of evidence (GRADE approach). RESULTS: 1,168 studies were retrieved. After excluding duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 4 RCTs remained (n = 2,109): 2 for tanezumab, one for REGN475, and one for fulranumab. Only the tanezumab studies showed any significant difference over placebo (n = 1,563) for both pain relief and functional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is very low evidence that systemically administered anti-NGF therapy has a small positive effect compared to placebo for both pain relief (standarized mean difference [SMD] = -0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.58 to 0.00) and functional improvement (SMD = -0.21, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.05 ) of low back pain. There was low evidence of adverse effects (AEs) compared to placebo and low evidence of neurological AEs than placebo (relative risk = 1.93, 95%CI 1.41 to 2.64).Tanezumab, as a specific anti-NGF treatment, showed low evidence of a small to moderate effect for pain relief of low back pain (SMD = -0.44, 95%CI -0.81 to -0.07); and low evidence of a small effect for functional improvement (SMD = -0.26, 95%CI -0.40 to -0.12) with systemic administration, although not clinically significant. Tanezumab and anti-NGFs overall had, respectively, moderate and low evidence of overall AEs and serious AEs and a higher risk of developing neurological AEs when compared with placebo. Although anti-NGF, specifically tanezumab, showed a low-to-moderate effect on pain relief and functional improvement, it cannot be recommended for low back pain treatment. Without more research on the pathophysiology of anti-NGFs and adverse effects, its use is not safe in the overall population. However, as corroborated by the US Food and Drug Administration, this meta-analysis underscores a role for greater insight into anti-NGF therapy for painful conditions that are refractory to current drugs, such as oncologic pain, chronic pancreatitis, and phantom-limb pain. Given the pathophysiology of axial pain involving inflammatory mediators and the adverse effects of systemic anti-NGF use, consideration of local therapies may warrant further exploration.


Subject(s)
Antibodies/therapeutic use , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Nerve Growth Factor/antagonists & inhibitors , Radiculopathy/drug therapy , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Nerve Growth Factor/immunology
6.
Pain Physician ; 17(1): E27-44, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24452656

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low back pain, with or without radiculopathy, is an important cause of disability and economic expenditure. However, many patients are not achieving optimal pain control with existing medications. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNFα) could be an alternative drug treatment. OBJECTIVES: Systematic review the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFα in the treatment of low back pain with or without radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Inclusion criteria were observational studies with safety as an outcome, and randomized or nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) studies on efficacy and/or safety of anti-TNFα drugs on low back pain. Exclusion criteria included patients with auto-immune conditions or osteoporosis. RESULTS: Studies were assessed independently by 2 authors regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk of bias, clinical relevance, quality, and strength of evidence (GRADE approach). Of the 1,179 studies retrieved, all duplicates were excluded and then the inclusion/exclusion criteria was applied. One observational study (n = 143) and 11 RCTs remained (n = 539): 8 for etanercept (n = 304), one for adalimumab (n = 61), one for adalimumab and etanercept (n = 60), one for infliximab (n = 40) and one for REN-1654 (n = 74). Only 3 etanercept and 2 adalimumab studies showed statistically significant pain relief when compared to placebo. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse effects when comparing anti-TNF-α and placebo. LIMITATIONS: Despite the statistically significant effect, this meta-analysis has important limitations, such as high heterogeneity and high use of outcome imputation. CONCLUSIONS: There is low evidence that epidural etanercept has a low-to-moderate effect size when compared to placebo for pain due to discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n=185), with a standardized mean difference = -0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.84 to -0.02).There is moderate evidence that epidural etanercept does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n = 185) with a relative risk (RR) = 0.84 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.34).There is moderate evidence that anti-TNFα does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for low back pain (10 studies, n= 343) with an RR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.55).We strongly suggest that anti-TNFα continue to be studied in experimental settings for the treatment of low back pain. We cannot currently recommend this therapy in clinical practice. New research could shed some light on the efficacy of anti-TNFα and change this recommendation in the future.


Subject(s)
Antibodies/therapeutic use , Immunoglobulin G/therapeutic use , Low Back Pain/drug therapy , Radiculopathy/drug therapy , Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor/therapeutic use , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Etanercept , Humans , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha/antagonists & inhibitors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL