RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.
Asunto(s)
Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/rehabilitación , Complicaciones del Embarazo/rehabilitación , Peso al Nacer/efectos de los fármacos , Buprenorfina/efectos adversos , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada/efectos adversos , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Metadona/efectos adversos , Metadona/uso terapéutico , Morfina/efectos adversos , Morfina/uso terapéutico , Narcóticos/efectos adversos , Narcóticos/agonistas , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.âe. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD. DESIGN: A literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions. RESULTS: 51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7. CONCLUSION: The low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/patología , Adenoma/cirugía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Humanos , Mucosa Intestinal/patología , Invasividad Neoplásica , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) represents a less invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) for patients with achalasia. It cannot be excluded, however, that the lack of fundoplication after POEM may result in a higher incidence of reflux disease, as compared with LHM. The aim of our study was to conduct a systematic review of prospective studies reporting the incidence of reflux disease developed after POEM and LHM. METHODS: A literature search with electronic databases was performed (up to February 2017) to identify full articles on the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and endoscopic monitoring and pH monitoring findings after POEM and LHM (with fundoplication). Proportions and rates were pooled by means of random or fixed-effects models, according to the level of heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: After we applied the selection criteria, 17 and 28 studies, including 1542 and 2581 participants who underwent POEM and LHM, respectively, were included. The pooled rate of postprocedural symptoms was 19.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.7%-22.8%) after POEM and 8.8% (95% CI, 5.3%-14.1%) after LHM, respectively. The pooled rate estimate of abnormal acid exposure at pH monitoring was 39.0% (95% CI, 24.5%-55.8%) after POEM and 16.8% (95% CI, 10.2%-26.4%) after LHM, respectively. The rate of esophagitis after POEM was 29.4% (95% CI, 18.5%-43.3%) after POEM and 7.6% (95% CI, 4.1%-13.7%) after LHM. At meta-regression, heterogeneity was explained partly by the POEM approach and study population. CONCLUSION: The incidence of reflux disease appears to be significantly more frequent after POEM than after LHM with fundoplication. Monitoring pH and ensuring appropriate treatment after POEM should be considered in order to prevent long-term reflux-related adverse events.
Asunto(s)
Acalasia del Esófago/cirugía , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/epidemiología , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/etiología , Miotomía/efectos adversos , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Monitorización del pH Esofágico , Esofagitis/epidemiología , Esofagitis/etiología , Fundoplicación/efectos adversos , Miotomía de Heller/efectos adversos , Humanos , Incidencia , Miotomía/métodosRESUMEN
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90â%); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95â%); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90â%); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85â%); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95â%); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90â%); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10â%). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90â%).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.
Asunto(s)
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/normas , Endosonografía/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Profilaxis Antibiótica/normas , Biopsia/normas , Cateterismo/normas , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efectos adversos , Conducto Colédoco , Cálculos Biliares/terapia , Humanos , Pancreatitis/etiología , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Stents/normasRESUMEN
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.
Asunto(s)
Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/normas , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Seguridad/normas , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/efectos adversos , Equipos y Suministros/normas , Instituciones de Salud/normas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/normas , Liderazgo , Comodidad del Paciente/normas , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/normas , Participación del Paciente , Selección de Paciente , Privacidad , Derivación y Consulta/normas , Recursos Humanos/normasRESUMEN
METHODS: After primary treatment, biochemical relapse (BCR) occurs in a substantial number of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). PET/CT imaging with prostate-specific membrane antigen based tracers (68Ga-PSMA) has shown promising results for BCR patients. However, a standardized image interpretation methodology has yet to be properly agreed. The aim of this study, which was promoted and funded by European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), is to define standardized image interpretation criteria for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to detect recurrent PCa lesions in patients treated with primary curative intent therapy (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) who presented a biochemical recurrence. In the first phase inter-rater agreement between seven readers from seven international centers was calculated on the reading of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT images of 49 patients with BCR. Each reader evaluated findings in five different sites of recurrence (local, loco-regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, bone, and other). In the second phase the re-analysis was limited to cases with poor, slight, fair, or moderate agreement [Krippendorff's (K) alpha<0.61]. Finally, on the basis of the consensus readings, we sought to define a list of revised consensus criteria for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT interpretation. RESULTS: Between-reader agreement for the presence of anomalous findings in any of the five sites was only moderate (K's alpha: 0.47). The agreement improved and became substantial when readers had to judge whether the anomalous findings were suggestive for a pathologic, uncertain, or non-pathologic image (K's alpha: 0.64). K's alpha calculations for each of the five sites of recurrence were also performed and evaluated. First Delphi round was thus conducted. A more detailed definition of the criteria was proposed by the project coordinator, which was then discussed and finally agreed by the seven readers. After the second Delphi round only four cases of disagreement still remained. These were evaluated for a final round, allowing a final agreement table to be written. CONCLUSION: We hope that by developing these consensus guidelines on the interpretation of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, clinicians reporting these studies will be able to provide more consistent clinical reports and that within clinical trials, abnormality classifications will be harmonized, allowing more robust assessment of its diagnostic performance.
Asunto(s)
Ácido Edético/análogos & derivados , Interpretación de Imagen Asistida por Computador/normas , Oligopéptidos , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Consenso , Isótopos de Galio , Radioisótopos de Galio , Humanos , Masculino , Recurrencia , Estándares de ReferenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model. RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: In non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa , Asia , Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa/efectos adversos , Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Neoplasia Residual , América del Norte , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps. DESIGN: Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register for the period 1966-2014. Studies in which ≥20â mm colorectal neoplastic lesions were treated with endoscopic resection were included. Rates of postendoscopic resection surgery due to non-curative resection or adverse events, as well as the rates of complete endoscopic removal, invasive cancer, adverse events, recurrence and mortality, were extracted. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was produced based on random effect models. I2 statistic was used to describe the variation across studies due to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was also performed. RESULTS: 50 studies including 6442 patients and 6779 large polyps were included in the analyses. Overall, 503 out of 6442 patients (pooled rate: 8%, 95% CI 7% to 10%, I2=78.6%) underwent surgery due to non-curative endoscopic resection, and 31/6442 (pooled rate: 1%, 95% CI 0.7% to 1.4%, I2=0%) to adverse events. Invasive cancer at histology, non-curative endoscopic resection, synchronous lesions and recurrence accounted for 58%, 28%, 2.2% and 5.9% of all the surgeries, respectively. Endoscopic perforation occurred in 96/6595 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.7%) polyps, while bleeding in 423/6474 (6.5%, 95% CI 5.9% to 7.1%). Overall, 5334 patients entered in surveillance, 502/5836 (8.6%, 95% CI 7.9% to 9.3%) being lost at follow-up. Endoscopic recurrence was detected in 735/5334 patients (13.8%, 95% CI 12.9% to 14.7%), being an invasive cancer in 14/5334 (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 664/735 cases (90.3%, 95% CI 88.2% to 92.5%). Mortality related with management of large polyps was reported in 5/6278 cases (0.08%, 95% CI 0.01% to 0.15%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection of large polyps appeared to be an extremely effective and safe intervention. However, an adequate endoscopic surveillance is necessary for its long-term efficacy.
Asunto(s)
Pólipos del Colon/cirugía , Colonoscopía , Enfermedades del Recto/cirugía , Pólipos del Colon/patología , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Humanos , Pólipos Intestinales/patología , Pólipos Intestinales/cirugía , Enfermedades del Recto/patología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The general aim of this systematic review is to mitigate breast cancer (BC) overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The specific aim is to summarize available data on the occurrence and features of indolent invasive or in situ (DCIS) BC, and precisely survival of untreated cases, prevalence of occult cancers found in autopsies, frequency of regressive BC. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to 3/31/2014. Eligibility criteria were: cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series assessing survival in women with a diagnosis of BC who did not receive treatment compared to treated women; case series of autopsies estimating the prevalence of undiagnosed BC; cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series, case reports assessing the occurrence of spontaneous regression of BC in women with a confirmed histology diagnosis. Untreated BC: 8 cohort studies and 12 case series (3593 BC) were included. In three controlled cohort studies (diagnoses 1978-2006), the 5-years overall survival was 19-43%. Occult BC: 8 case series (2279 autopsies) were included. The prevalence of invasive BC undiagnosed during lifetime range was 0-1.5%, while for DCIS the range was 0.2-14.7%. Spontaneous regression: 2 cohort studies, 3 case reports, 1 case series included. In the cohort studies the relative risk of regression for screen detected compared with nonscreened BC was estimated as 1.2 and 1.1. It seems plausible that around 10% of invasive BC are not symptomatic during life, and that one fith of BC patients if untreated would be alive after 5 years. Around 1 of 10 screen-detected BC may regress according two studies.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Autopsia , Neoplasias de la Mama/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Regresión Neoplásica Espontánea , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Evaluación del Resultado de la Atención al Paciente , Prevalencia , Análisis de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Flexible endoscopic septum division (FESD) is a rapidly evolving technique for the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature focusing on FESD for ZD, including an in-depth evaluation of its efficacy, safety, and limitations. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was completed to identify papers that examined the efficacy and safety of FESD for ZD. Demographic, clinical, and technical information was retrieved. Main outcomes were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I(2) statistic. A random effect model was used as the pooling method in cases of high heterogeneity; otherwise the fixed effect model was applied. Meta-regression was also performed. Main outcomes such as rates of success, adverse events, and recurrences were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty studies with a total of 813 patients were selected. The pooled success, adverse events, and recurrence rates were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-95%; I(2) = 69.5%), 11.3% (95% CI, 8%-16%; I(2) = 64%), and 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%; I(2) = 38.4%), respectively. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was found. However, for success rates, excluding 3 studies reduced heterogeneity to non-significant rates [I(2) = 25.6%; P = .154]. Adverse event rates decreased with larger samples (coefficient, -0.0123; 95% CI, -0.03 to -0.003; P = .017), whereas recurrence rates increased (coefficient, 0.006; 95% CI, -0.0010 to 0.0125; P = .093). Year of publication was negatively associated with success rate, whereas the opposite pattern was found for recurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: FESD is a feasible, safe, and effective treatment for symptomatic ZD, with low adverse event and recurrence rates.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos de Deglución/cirugía , Esofagoscopía/métodos , Músculos Faríngeos/cirugía , Divertículo de Zenker/cirugía , Trastornos de Deglución/etiología , Esofagoscopios , Humanos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Divertículo de Zenker/complicacionesRESUMEN
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision.ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients.
Asunto(s)
Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/normas , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/métodos , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/normas , Técnica Delphi , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/organización & administración , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Sociedades MédicasRESUMEN
The study aims to review available evidence concerning effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening acceptance. We performed a literature search of randomised trials designed to increase individuals' use of CRC screening on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Small (≤ 100 subjects per arm) studies and those reporting results of interventions implemented before publication of the large faecal occult blood test trials were excluded. Interventions were categorised following the Continuum of Cancer Care and the PRECEDE-PROCEED models and studies were grouped by screening model (opportunistic vs organised). Multifactor interventions targeting multiple levels of care and considering factors outside the individual clinician control, represent the most effective strategy to enhance CRC screening acceptance. Removing financial barriers, implementing methods allowing a systematic contact of the whole target population, using personal invitation letters, preferably signed by the reference care provider, and reminders mailed to all non-attendees are highly effective in enhancing CRC screening acceptance. Physician reminders may support the diffusion of screening, but they can be effective only for individuals who have access to and make use of healthcare services. Educational interventions for patients and providers are effective, but the implementation of organisational measures may be necessary to favour their impact. Available evidence indicates that organised programmes allow to achieve an extensive coverage and to enhance equity of access, while maximising the health impact of screening. They provide at the same time an infrastructure allowing to achieve a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile of potentially effective strategies, which would not be sustainable in opportunistic settings.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Promoción de la Salud/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/psicología , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , HumanosRESUMEN
Cancer screening may represent an ideal setting for promoting healthy lifestyle. We conducted a literature review of intervention studies of primary prevention interventions implemented in the context of established screening programmes. We identified 11 trials, 3 of which conducted in Italy. A positive impact of these interventions in favouring the adoption of cancer protective dietary behaviours was observed in all studies. A limited impact was reported for physical activity, while no effect could be observed for interventions aimed to promote smoking cessation. Long term maintenance of the observed behavioural changes and the sustainability overtime of these interventions within population-based programmes should be assessed. To enhance their effectiveness, these health education programmes should include multiple strategies, integrating and combining models of individual, social, and environmental change.
Asunto(s)
Dieta , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Prevención Primaria , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Educación en Salud , Humanos , Italia/epidemiología , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Prevención Primaria/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. METHODS: We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. FINDINGS: We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154â556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. INTERPRETATION: In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. FUNDING: The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.
Asunto(s)
Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Papillomaviridae/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/diagnóstico , Autocuidado , Manejo de Especímenes/métodos , Displasia del Cuello del Útero/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/diagnóstico , Biopsia , Colposcopía , Femenino , Humanos , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/complicaciones , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/virología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/patología , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/virología , Displasia del Cuello del Útero/patología , Displasia del Cuello del Útero/virologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The scientific literature examining effective treatments for opioid dependent adults clearly indicates that pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable component of effective treatments for opioid dependence. Nevertheless, no studies have been published that systematically assess the effectiveness of the pharmacological detoxification among adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any detoxification treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared with no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions on completion of treatment, reducing the use of substances and improving health and social status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), PubMed (January 1966 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), CINHAL (January 1982 to January 2014), Web of Science (1991-January 2014) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing any pharmacological interventions alone or associated with psychosocial intervention aimed at detoxification with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial intervention in adolescents (13 to 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving 190 participants were included. One trial compared buprenorphine with clonidine for detoxification. No difference was found for drop out: risk ratio (RR) 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20 to 1.04) and acceptability of treatment: withdrawal score mean difference (MD): 3.97 (95% CI -1.38 to 9.32). More participants in the buprenorphine group initiated naltrexone treatment: RR 11.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 76.55), quality of evidence moderate.The other trial compared maintenance treatment versus detoxification treatment: buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance versus buprenorphine detoxification. For drop out the results were in favour of maintenance treatment: RR 2.67 (95% CI 1.85, 3.86), as well as for results at follow-up RR 1.36 [95% CI 1.05to 1.76); no differences for use of opiate, quality of evidence low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of two trials with few participants. Furthermore, the two studies included did not consider the efficacy of methadone that is still the most frequent drug utilised for the treatment of opioid withdrawal. One possible reason for the lack of evidence could be the difficulty in conducting trials with young people due to practical and ethical reasons.
Asunto(s)
Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Clonidina/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/rehabilitación , Adolescente , Humanos , Quimioterapia de Mantención/métodos , Naloxona/uso terapéutico , Naltrexona/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/métodos , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The scientific literature examining effective treatments for opioid-dependent adults clearly indicates that pharmacotherapy is a necessary and acceptable component. Nevertheless, no reviews have been published that systematically assess the effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment in adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for retaining adolescents in treatment, reducing the use of substances and improving health and social status. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Trials Register (January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), PubMed (January 1966 to January 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2014), Web of Science (1991 to January 2014) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials of any maintenance pharmacological interventions either alone or associated with psychosocial intervention compared with no intervention, placebo, other pharmacological intervention, pharmacological detoxification or psychosocial intervention in adolescents (13 to 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials involving 189 participants. One study, with 35 participants, compared methadone with levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) for maintenance treatment lasting 16 weeks, after which patients were detoxified. The other study, with 154 participants, compared maintenance treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone and detoxification with buprenorphine. We did not perform meta-analysis because the two studies assessed different comparisons.In the study comparing methadone and LAAM, the authors declared that there was no difference in the use of a substance of abuse or social functioning (data not shown). The quality of the evidence was very low. No side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, constipation, weakness or fatigue, were reported by study participants.In the comparison between buprenorphine maintenance and buprenorphine detoxification, maintenance treatment appeared to be more efficacious in retaining patients in treatment (drop-out risk ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.54), but not in reducing the number of patients with a positive urine test at the end of the study (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22). Self reported opioid use at one-year follow-up was significantly lower in the maintenance group, even though both groups reported a high level of opioid use (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). More patients in the maintenance group were enrolled in other addiction treatment programmes at 12-month follow-up (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.88). The quality of the evidence was low. No serious side effects attributable to buprenorphine-naloxone were reported by study participants and no patients were removed from the study due to side effects. The most common side effect was headache, which was reported by 16% to 21% of patients in both groups AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draft conclusions on the basis of only two trials. One of the possible reasons for the lack of evidence could be the difficulty of conducting trials with young people for practical and ethical reasons.There is an urgent need for further randomised controlled trials comparing maintenance treatment with detoxification treatment or psychosocial treatment alone before carrying out studies that compare different pharmacological maintenance treatments. These studies should have long follow-up and measure relapse rates after the end of treatment and social functioning (integration at school or at work, family relationships).
Asunto(s)
Quimioterapia de Mantención/métodos , Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/métodos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/rehabilitación , Adolescente , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Metadona/uso terapéutico , Acetato de Metadil/uso terapéutico , Naloxona/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Heroin crosses the placenta and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment and reducing the use of substances. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (September 2013), PubMed (1966 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), reference lists of relevant papers, sources of ongoing trials, conference proceedings and national focal points for drug research. We contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any maintenance pharmacological treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high drop-out rate (30% to 40%) and this was unbalanced between groups.Methadone versus buprenorphine: the drop-out rate from treatment was lower in the methadone group (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.01, three studies, 223 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the use of primary substance between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.69, two studies, 151 participants). For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Birth weight was higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that could be pooled (mean difference (MD) -365.45 g (95% CI -673.84 to -57.07), two studies, 150 participants). The third study reported that there was no statistically significant difference. For APGAR score neither of the studies which compared methadone with buprenorphine found a significant difference. For both, we judged the quality of evidence as low. Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, did not differ significantly between groups. We judged the quality of evidence as very low.Methadone versus slow-release morphine: there was no drop-out in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine seemed superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate.Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. For the mother there was no statistically significant difference; for the newborns in the buprenorphine group there were significantly fewer serious side effects.In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine no side effects were reported for the mother, whereas one child in the methadone group had central apnoea and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient significant differences between methadone and buprenorphine or slow-release morphineto allow us to conclude that one treatment is superior to another for all relevant outcomes. While methadone seems superior in terms of retaining patients in treatment, buprenorphine seems to lead to less severe neonatal abstinence syndrome. Additionally, even though a multi-centre, international trial with 175 pregnant women has recently been completed and its results published and included in this review, the body of evidence is still too small to draw firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.
Asunto(s)
Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/rehabilitación , Complicaciones del Embarazo/rehabilitación , Peso al Nacer/efectos de los fármacos , Buprenorfina/efectos adversos , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada/efectos adversos , Preparaciones de Acción Retardada/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Metadona/efectos adversos , Metadona/uso terapéutico , Morfina/efectos adversos , Morfina/uso terapéutico , Narcóticos/efectos adversos , Narcóticos/agonistas , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
Programmes that promote dietary behaviour change for the prevention of chronic disease must include components that are rooted in best practice and associated with effectiveness. The purpose of this overview of systematic reviews was to examine the characteristics and dietary behaviour change outcomes of nutrition interventions among populations with or at risk of non-communicable chronic diseases. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing dietary behaviour change interventions published between January 2006 and November 2015 were identified via searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Quality of reviews were appraised using AMSTAR. Dietary behaviour change and intervention details were extracted and systematically summarised. Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Dietary behaviour changes in response to nutrition interventions were significant in over half of interventions. Reducing dietary fat and increasing fruits and vegetables were the most common behaviour changes. The characteristics of nutrition interventions and their relationship to effectiveness for dietary behaviour change among chronic disease or at-risk populations were reported inconsistently. However, associative evidence exists to support more frequent contacts and the use of specific behaviour change techniques. No clear relationships were found between effectiveness and intervention setting, mode of delivery or intervention provider, although some population-specific relationships were identified. Interventions that promote long-term maintenance of dietary behaviour changes are lacking in the literature. This comprehensive umbrella review identifies specific characteristics of interventions that are associated with effectiveness in interventions that promote dietary behaviour change among different at-risk populations. In order to maximise outcomes, public health, health promotion and healthcare organisations should consider these results in order to inform the development and improvement of nutrition programmes.
Asunto(s)
Dieta Saludable/métodos , Conducta Alimentaria , Enfermedades no Transmisibles/prevención & control , Conductas de Riesgo para la Salud , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.