Реферат
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of long-term oxygen therapy as a strategy to reduce hospitalization time in patients affected by COVID-19. METHODS: Between April and December 2021, COVID-19 patients with stable clinical conditions needing supplementary oxygen therapy during hospitalization were oriented to have hospital discharge with long-term oxygen therapy and reassessment after 15 days. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were evaluated and, 15 days after discharge, 69% of patients had suspended long-term oxygen therapy, with no difference between the groups admitted to the intensive care unit or the ward (p=0.319). Among the individuals who needed to maintain long-term oxygen therapy, in addition to worse P/F ratio (265±57 vs. 345±51; p<0.001) and lower partial pressure of oxygen (55±12 vs. 72±11 mmHg; p<0.001), were those more obese (37±8 vs. 30±6 kg/m2; p=0.032), needed more time for invasive mechanical ventilation (46±27 vs. 20±16 days; p=0.029), had greater persistence of symptoms (p<0.001), and shorter time between the onset of symptoms and the need for hospitalization (7 [2-9] vs. 10 [6-12] days; p=0.039). CONCLUSION: Long-term oxygen therapy is an effective strategy for reducing hospitalization time in COVID-19 patients, regardless of gravity. Additionally, more obese patients with persistence of respiratory symptoms, faster disease evolution, and more days of invasive mechanical ventilation needed to maintain the long-term oxygen therapy longer.
Реферат
ABSTRACT Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic disease that results in dysfunction of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, which is a chloride and bicarbonate channel expressed in the apical portion of epithelial cells of various organs. Dysfunction of that protein results in diverse clinical manifestations, primarily involving the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, impairing quality of life and reducing life expectancy. Although CF is still an incurable pathology, the therapeutic and prognostic perspectives are now totally different and much more favorable. The purpose of these guidelines is to define evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of pharmacological agents in the treatment of the pulmonary symptoms of CF in Brazil. Questions in the Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO) format were employed to address aspects related to the use of modulators of this protein (ivacaftor, lumacaftor+ivacaftor, and tezacaftor+ivacaftor), use of dornase alfa, eradication therapy and chronic suppression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Burkholderia cepacia complex. To formulate the PICO questions, a group of Brazilian specialists was assembled and a systematic review was carried out on the themes, with meta-analysis when applicable. The results obtained were analyzed in terms of the strength of the evidence compiled, the recommendations being devised by employing the GRADE approach. We believe that these guidelines represent a major advance to be incorporated into the approach to patients with CF, mainly aiming to favor the management of the disease, and could become an auxiliary tool in the definition of public policies related to CF.
RESUMO A fibrose cística (FC) é uma doença genética que resulta em disfunção da proteína reguladora de condutância transmembrana da FC (CFTR), que é um canal de cloro e bicarbonato expresso na porção apical de células epiteliais de diversos órgãos. A disfunção dessa proteína resulta em manifestações clínicas diversas, envolvendo primariamente os sistemas respiratório e gastrointestinal com redução da qualidade e expectativa de vida. A FC ainda é uma patologia incurável, porém o horizonte terapêutico e prognóstico é hoje totalmente distinto e muito mais favorável. O objetivo destas diretrizes foi definir recomendações brasileiras baseadas em evidências em relação ao emprego de agentes farmacológicos no tratamento pulmonar da FC. As perguntas PICO (acrônimo baseado em perguntas referentes aos Pacientes de interesse, Intervenção a ser estudada, Comparação da intervenção e Outcome [desfecho] de interesse) abordaram aspectos relativos ao uso de moduladores de CFTR (ivacaftor, lumacaftor + ivacaftor e tezacaftor + ivacaftor), uso de dornase alfa, terapia de erradicação e supressão crônica de Pseudomonas aeruginosa, e erradicação de Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina e do complexo Burkholderia cepacia. Para a formulação das perguntas, um grupo de especialistas brasileiros foi reunido e realizou-se uma revisão sistemática sobre os temas, com meta-análise quando aplicável. Os resultados encontrados foram analisados quanto à força das evidências compiladas, sendo concebidas recomendações seguindo a metodologia GRADE. Os autores acreditam que o presente documento represente um importante avanço a ser incorporado na abordagem de pacientes com FC, objetivando principalmente favorecer seu manejo, podendo se tornar uma ferramenta auxiliar na definição de políticas públicas relacionadas à FC.
Реферат
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with the combination of three cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators-elexacaftor+tezacaftor+ivacaftor (ETI)-on important clinical endpoints in individuals with cystic fibrosis. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the use of ETI in individuals with CF and at least one F508del allele with that of placebo or with an active comparator such as other combinations of CFTR modulators, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and the Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO) methodology. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to December 26th, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: We retrieved 54 studies in the primary search. Of these, 6 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (1,127 patients; 577 and 550 in the intervention and control groups, respectively). The meta-analysis revealed that the use of ETI increased FEV1% [risk difference (RD), +10.47%; 95% CI, 6.88-14.06], reduced the number of acute pulmonary exacerbations (RD, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.28 to −0.04), and improved quality of life (RD, +14.93; 95% CI, 9.98-19.89) and BMI (RD, +1.07 kg/m2; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25). Adverse events did not differ between groups (RD, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01), and none of the studies reported deaths. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that ETI treatment substantially improves clinically significant, patient-centered outcomes.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito do tratamento com a combinação de três moduladores da proteína cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR, reguladora de condutância transmembrana em fibrose cística) - elexacaftor + tezacaftor + ivacaftor (ETI) - sobre desfechos clínicos importantes em indivíduos com fibrose cística. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos randomizados que compararam o uso de ETI em indivíduos com fibrose cística com pelo menos um alelo F508del com o uso de placebo ou de um comparador ativo como outras combinações de moduladores da CFTR. O estudo foi realizado seguindo as recomendações Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) e a metodologia Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO). Foram realizadas buscas nos seguintes bancos de dados: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov, desde a sua criação até 26 de dezembro de 2022. O risco de viés foi avaliado por meio da ferramenta de risco de viés da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências foi determinada com base no sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: Foram identificados 54 estudos na busca primária. Destes, 6 preencheram os critérios de inclusão e foram analisados (1.127 pacientes: 577 pacientes intervenção e 550 pacientes controle). A meta-análise revelou que o uso de ETI aumentou o VEF1 em porcentagem do previsto [diferença de risco (DR): +10,47%; IC95%: 6,88-14,06], reduziu o número de exacerbações pulmonares agudas (DR: −0,16; IC95%: −0,28 a −0,04) e melhorou a qualidade de vida (DR: +14,93; IC95%: 9,98-19,89) e o IMC (DR: +1,07 kg/m2; IC95%: 0,90-1,25). Os eventos adversos não diferiram entre os grupos (DR: −0,03; IC95%: −0,08 a 0,01), e nenhum dos estudos relatou óbitos. Conclusões: Nossos achados demonstram que o tratamento com ETI melhora substancialmente os desfechos clinicamente significativos centrados no paciente.
Реферат
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, considering the best level of evidence available. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wearing masks compared with that of not wearing them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of the 1,028 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies) and were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis using cohort studies alone showed statistically significant differences, wearing a cloth mask decreased by 21% [RD = −0.21 (95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the quality of evidence was low. Regarding case-control studies, wearing a surgical mask reduced the chance of COVID-19 infection [OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001], as did wearing an N95 respirator mask [OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001], both with low quality of evidence. Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the type of mask (disposable surgical mask, common masks, including cloth masks, or N95 respirators), although the studies evaluated presented with low quality of evidence and important biases.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de estudos de coorte e caso-controle, considerando o melhor nível de evidência disponível. Bancos de dados eletrônicos (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov) foram pesquisados para identificar estudos que avaliassem a eficácia do uso de máscaras em comparação com ausência de seu uso durante a pandemia de COVID-19. O risco de viés e a qualidade da evidência foram avaliados usando a ferramenta Cochrane risk of bias e Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Resultados: Dos 1.028 estudos identificados, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão (2 estudos de coorte e 7 estudos de caso-controle) e foram incluídos na análise. A meta-análise usando apenas estudos de coorte mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas: o uso de máscara de tecido diminuiu 21% [(risk difference = −0,21 (IC 95%: −0,34 a −0,07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] o risco de infecção por COVID-19, mas a qualidade da evidência foi baixa. Em relação aos estudos caso-controle, o uso de máscara cirúrgica reduziu a chance de infecção por COVID-19 [OR = 0,51 (IC 95%: 0,37-0,70); I2 = 47%; p = 0,0001], assim como o uso de máscara respiratória N95 [OR = 0,31 (IC 95%: 0,20-0,49); I2 = 0%; p = 0,00001], ambos com baixa qualidade de evidência. Conclusões: Nesta revisão sistemática com meta-análise, demonstramos a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 independentemente do tipo de máscara (máscara cirúrgica descartável, máscaras comuns, incluindo máscaras de tecido, ou respiradores N95), embora os estudos avaliados apresentassem evidências de baixa qualidade e vieses importantes.
Тема - темы
Humans , Antirheumatic Agents , COVID-19/drug therapy , Piperidines , Purines , Pyrazoles , Pyrimidines , Sulfonamides , Azetidines , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , SARS-CoV-2Реферат
Abstract Background Sepsis and septic shock are severe and difficult-to-treat conditions with high lethality. There is interest in identifying new adjunct therapies that are effective in reducing mortality. In this context, L-carnitine has been investigated in trials as a potentially beneficial drug. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical evidence to support the use of L-carnitine in septic shock patients to reduce the risk of mortality. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effect of L-carnitine compared to placebo or Usual Care (UC) on the mortality rate in hospitalized adult septic shock patients. Methods The authors exclusively included randomized clinical trials that compared the use of L-carnitine versus placebo in adult (> 18 years old) septic shock patients. The outcome was a mortality rate of 28 days. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with the ID CRD42020180499. Results Following the initial search, 4007 citations were identified, with 2701 remaining after duplicate removal. Eight citations were selected for body text reading, and two were selected for inclusion. The studies enrolled 275 patients, with 186 in the carnitine arm and 89 in the placebo arm. The effect of L-carnitine uses in septic shock patients showed a difference risk of -0.03 (95% Confidence Interval: -0.15-0.10, I2 = 77%, p = 0.69) compared to placebo/in mortality rate with low quality of evidence. Conclusions There is low-quality evidence that the use of L-carnitine has no significant effect on reducing 28-day mortality in septic shock patients.
Реферат
ABSTRACT Many patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were unable to return to work or their return was delayed due to their health condition. The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the impact of moderate-to-severe and critical COVID-19 infection on persistence of symptoms and return to work after hospital discharge. In this study, two thirds of hospitalized patients with pulmonary involvement reported persistence of symptoms six months after COVID-19 infection, such as memory loss (45.5%), myalgia (43.9%), fatigue (39.4%), and dyspnea (25.8%), and 50% slowly returned to work, with repercussions due to fatigue and/or loss of energy.
RESUMO Muitos pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 não puderam retornar ao trabalho ou seu retorno foi atrasado devido ao seu estado de saúde. O objetivo deste estudo observacional foi avaliar o impacto da infecção moderada a grave ou crítica por COVID-19 na persistência dos sintomas e no retorno ao trabalho após a alta hospitalar. Neste estudo, dois terços dos pacientes hospitalizados com acometimento pulmonar relataram persistência dos sintomas seis meses após a infecção por COVID-19, como perda de memória (45,5%), mialgia (43,9%), fadiga (39,4%) e dispneia (25,8%), e 50% retornaram lentamente ao trabalho, com repercussões devido à fadiga e/ou perda de energia.
Реферат
ABSTRACT This brief communication demonstrates the correlation of persistent respiratory symptoms with functional, tomographic, and transbronchial pulmonary biopsy findings in patients with COVID-19 who had a long follow-up period. We report a series of six COVID-19 patients with pulmonary involvement who presented with persistent dyspnea within 4-15 months of discharge. We performed transbronchial biopsies, and the histopathological pattern consistently demonstrated peribronchial remodeling with interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. Therefore, lung biopsy may be useful in the approach of patients with long COVID-19, although the type of procedure, its precise indication, and the moment to perform it are yet to be clarified. (Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials-ReBEC; identifier: RBR-8j9kqy [http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br])
RESUMO Esta comunicação breve demonstra a correlação de sintomas respiratórios persistentes com achados funcionais, tomográficos e de biópsia pulmonar transbrônquica em pacientes com COVID-19 que tiveram um longo período de acompanhamento. Relatamos uma série de seis pacientes com COVID-19 com acometimento pulmonar que apresentavam dispneia persistente após 4-15 meses da alta. Realizamos biópsias transbrônquicas, e o padrão histopatológico consistentemente demonstrou remodelação peribrônquica com fibrose pulmonar intersticial. Portanto, a biópsia pulmonar pode ser útil na abordagem de pacientes com COVID-19 prolongada, embora o tipo de procedimento, suas indicações precisas e o momento de sua realização ainda não estejam esclarecidos. (Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos - ReBEC; número de identificação: RBR-8j9kqy [http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br])
Реферат
ABSTRACT Objective: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. Results: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = −0.01 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). Conclusions: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.
RESUMO Objetivo: Estudos na literatura sobre o uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 têm apresentado resultados divergentes. O objetivo deste estudo foi responder a perguntas a respeito do uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados (ECR) de fase 3 e estudos observacionais de coorte recuperados de diversos bancos de dados, comparando pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave recebendo remdesivir a controles. Resultados: Foram recuperados 207 estudos, dos quais 9 preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram incluídos no estudo. A meta-análise somente dos ECR não mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade ou ao uso de ventilação mecânica/oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea, e a qualidade das evidências foi moderada e baixa, respectivamente. O uso de remdesivir aumentou a taxa de recuperação em 6% (IC95%: 3-9; p = 0,004) e a taxa de melhora clínica em 7% (IC95%: 1-14; p = 0,02). Além disso, não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade quando a meta-análise concentrou-se apenas nos estudos observacionais de coorte [diferença de risco = −0,01 (IC95%: −0,02 a 0,01); p = 0,32; qualidade das evidências: moderada], e o risco de eventos adversos foi de 4% (IC95%: −0,08 a 0,01; p = 0,09). Conclusões: O uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave não teve impacto significativo em desfechos clinicamente importantes.
Тема - темы
Humans , COVID-19/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Treatment Outcome , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2Реферат
ABSTRACT Objective: To answer questions related to the use of anticoagulants in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials comparing the use of anticoagulants in non-hospitalized and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to January 22, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: A total of 401 studies were initially selected. Of those, 9 met the inclusion criteria and were therefore analyzed (a total of 6,004 patients being analyzed). In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no significant difference was found between post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation and no intervention regarding venous thromboembolism or bleeding at 30 days. In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, full anticoagulation resulted in a slight reduction in thrombotic events at 30 days (risk difference, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.00; p = 0.04; I2 = 78%), the quality of evidence being moderate. However, no significant difference was found between full anticoagulation and no intervention regarding the risk of major bleeding, the quality of evidence being very low. No significant difference was found between intermediate- and standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (risk difference, −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.81; I2 = 0%), the quality of evidence being very low. Conclusions: Therapeutic anticoagulation appears to have no effect on mortality in COVID-19 patients, resulting in a slight reduction in venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients.
RESUMO Objetivo: Responder a perguntas relacionadas ao uso de anticoagulantes no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados de fase 3 comparando o uso de anticoagulantes em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados e hospitalizados. Os bancos de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov foram investigados desde sua criação até 22 de janeiro de 2022. O risco de viés foi avaliado pela ferramenta de risco de viés da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências foi avaliada pelo sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Resultados: Inicialmente foram selecionados 401 estudos. Destes, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão e, portanto, foram analisados (num total de 6.004 pacientes analisados). Em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática pós-alta e nenhuma intervenção no que tange a tromboembolismo venoso ou sangramento em 30 dias. Em pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados, a anticoagulação plena resultou em ligeira redução de eventos trombóticos em 30 dias (diferença de risco: −0,03; IC95%: −0,06 a −0,00; p = 0,04; I2 = 78%); a qualidade das evidências foi moderada. No entanto, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação plena e nenhuma intervenção quanto ao risco de sangramento maior; a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática com dose intermediária e dose-padrão (diferença de risco: −0,01; IC95%: −0,07 a 0,06; p = 0,81; I2 = 0%); a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Conclusões: A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não ter efeito na mortalidade em pacientes com COVID-19, resultando em ligeira redução do tromboembolismo venoso em pacientes hospitalizados.
Реферат
Resumo Fundamento: A vitamina D (VD) tem um importante papel na função cardíaca. No entanto, a vitamina exerce uma curva "dose-resposta" bifásica na fisiopatologia cardiovascular e pode causar efeitos deletérios, mesmo em doses não tóxicas. A VD exerce suas funções celulares ligando-se ao seu receptor. Ainda, a expressão da proteína de interação com a tiorredoxina (TXNIP) é positivamente regulada pela VD. A TXNIP modula diferentes visa de sinalização celular que podem ser importantes para a remodelação cardíaca. Objetivos: Avaliar se a suplementação com VD leva à remodelação cardíaca, e se a TXNIP e a tiorredoxina (Trx) estão associadas com esse processo. Métodos: Duzentos e cinquenta ratos Wistar machos foram alocados em três grupos: controle (C, n=21), sem suplementação com VD; VD3 (n = 22) e VD10 (n=21), suplementados com 3,000 e 10,000 UI de VD/ kg de ração, respectivamente, por dois meses. Os grupos foram comparados por análise de variância (ANOVA) com um fator e teste post hoc de Holm-Sidak (variáveis com distribuição normal), ou pelo teste de Kruskal-Wallis e análise post-hoc de Dunn. O nível de significância para todos os testes foi de 5%. Resultados: A expressão de TXNIP foi mais alta e a atividade do Trx foi mais baixa no grupo VD10. Os animais que receberam suplementação com VD apresentaram aumento de hidroperóxido lipídico e diminuição de superóxido dismutase e glutationa peroxidase. A proteína Bcl-2 foi mais baixa no grupo VD10. Observou-se uma diminuição na β-oxidação de ácidos graxos, no ciclo do ácido tricarboxílico, na cadeia transportadora de elétrons, e um aumento na via glicolítica. Conclusão: A suplementação com VD levou à remodelação cardíaca e esse processo pode ser modulado por TXNIP e Trx, e consequentemente por estresse oxidativo.
Abstract Background: Vitamin D (VD) has been shown to play an important role in cardiac function. However, this vitamin exerts a biphasic "dose response" curve in cardiovascular pathophysiology and may cause deleterious effects, even in non-toxic doses. VD exerts its cellular functions by binding to VD receptor. Additionally, it was identified that the thioredoxin-interacting protein (TXNIP) expression is positively regulated by VD. TXNIP modulate different cell signaling pathways that may be important for cardiac remodeling. Objective: To evaluate whether VD supplementation lead to cardiac remodeling and if TXNIP and thioredoxin (Trx) proteins are associated with the process. Methods: A total of 250 Male Wistar rats were allocated into three groups: control (C, n=21), with no VD supplementation; VD3 (n = 22) and VD10 (n=21), supplemented with 3,000 and 10,000 IU of VD/ kg of chow respectively, for two months. The groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Holm-Sidak post hoc analysis, (variables with normal distribution), or by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test post hoc analysis. The significance level for all tests was 5%. Results: TXNIP protein expression was higher and Trx activity was lower in VD10. The animals supplemented with VD showed increased lipid hydroperoxide and decreased superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase. The protein Bcl-2 was lower in VD10. There was a decrease in fatty acid β-oxidation, tricarboxylic acid cycle and electron transport chain with shift to increase in glycolytic pathway. Conclusion: VD supplementation led to cardiac remodeling and this process may be modulated by TXNIP and Trx proteins and consequently oxidative stress.
Тема - темы
Animals , Male , Rats , Thioredoxins/metabolism , Ventricular Remodeling , Vitamin D , Rats, Wistar , Oxidative Stress , Cell Cycle Proteins , Dietary SupplementsРеферат
ABSTRACT Objective: Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has demonstrated no effect on the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to answer questions related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in the treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 in terms of hospitalization, adverse events, and mortality. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials, selected from various databases, which compared patients who received hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis or treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with controls. Results: A total number of 1,376 studies were retrieved. Of those, 9 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. No statistically significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in terms of pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of adverse events by 12% (95% CI, 6-18%; p < 0.001), and the number needed to harm was 9. In addition, no significant differences were found between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups regarding hospitalization (risk difference [RD] = −0.02; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.00; p = 0.14) or mortality (RD = 0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02; p = 0.98) in the treatment of mild COVID-19. Conclusions: The use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection or treatment of patients with mild COVID-19 is not recommended.
RESUMO Objetivo: A cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina não apresentou nenhum efeito no tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19. O objetivo deste estudo foi responder a questões a respeito do uso de hidroxicloroquina na profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 pré ou pós-exposição e no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 leve no tocante à hospitalização, eventos adversos e mortalidade. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados aleatórios de fase 3 que foram selecionados por meio de buscas em diversos bancos de dados e que compararam controles e pacientes que receberam hidroxicloroquina para profilaxia de SARS-CoV-2 ou tratamento de COVID-19 leve. Resultados: Foram identificados 1.376 estudos. Destes, 9 preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram incluídos no estudo. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os grupos hidroxicloroquina e controle quanto à profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 pré ou pós-exposição. O uso de hidroxicloroquina aumentou o risco de eventos adversos em 12% (IC95%: 6-18%; p < 0,001), e o número necessário para prejudicar foi 9. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre os grupos hidroxicloroquina e controle quanto à hospitalização [diferença de risco (DR) = −0,02; IC95%: −0,04 a 0,00; p = 0,14] e mortalidade (DR = 0,00; IC95%: −0,01 a 0,02; p = 0,98) no tratamento de COVID-19 leve. Conclusões: Não é recomendado o uso de hidroxicloroquina nem na profilaxia da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 nem no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 leve.