ABSTRACT
Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI = - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.
Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Obesity, Morbid , Reoperation , Weight Loss , Humans , Reoperation/statistics & numerical data , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Female , Body Mass Index , Adult , Observational Studies as Topic , MaleABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Venous Thromboembolism , Aftercare , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Patient Discharge , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & controlABSTRACT
This study aims to estimate whether prophylactic cervical lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences the short- and long-term results through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Twenty-eight articles were selected in this systematic review, encompassing 9180 patients. Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution, as it is associated with worse short-term results compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Esophageal Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagectomy/methods , Humans , Lymph Node Excision/methods , Lymphatic MetastasisABSTRACT
There is no agreement whether prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without resection, during esophagectomy for patients with cancer is beneficial. The effects of these procedures on postoperative complications and overall survival remain unclear. This systematic review included 16 articles. TDL did not influence short- and long-term outcomes. However, thoracic duct resection increased postoperative chylothorax and overall complications, with no improvement in survival.
Subject(s)
Chylothorax , Esophageal Neoplasms , Chylothorax/etiology , Chylothorax/prevention & control , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Esophagectomy/methods , Humans , Ligation/methods , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Thoracic Duct/surgeryABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , COVID-19/drug therapy , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Treatment Outcome , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
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.
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Coronavirus Infections , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a non-invasive diagnostic tool to evaluate PC with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, has emerged as a more accurate alternative to assess disease staging. We aimed to identify predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and the accuracy of this technique. Materials and methods: Diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study with prospective and retrospective approaches. We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase database in search of studies including PC patients submitted to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with curative intent and presented biochemical recurrence following ASTRO 1996 criteria. A total of 35 studies involving 3910 patients submitted to 68-Ga-PSMA PET were included and independently assessed by two authors: 8 studies on diagnosis, four on staging, and 23 studies on restaging purposes. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (0.82-0.96), respectively, for diagnostic purposes; as for staging, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99), respectively. In the restaging scenario, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.45 (0.27-0.58), respectively, considering the identification of prostate cancer in each described situation. We also obtained specificity and sensitivity results for PSA subdivisions. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET provides higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional imaging for prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Cross-Sectional Studies , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Radiopharmaceuticals , Positron-Emission TomographyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a non-invasive diagnostic tool to evaluate PC with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, has emerged as a more accurate alternative to assess disease staging. We aimed to identify predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and the accuracy of this technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study with prospective and retrospective approaches. We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase database in search of studies including PC patients submitted to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with curative intent and presented biochemical recurrence following ASTRO 1996 criteria. A total of 35 studies involving 3910 patients submitted to 68-Ga-PSMA PET were included and independently assessed by two authors: 8 studies on diagnosis, four on staging, and 23 studies on restaging purposes. The significance level was α=0.05. RESULTS: pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (0.82-0.96), respectively, for diagnostic purposes; as for staging, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99), respectively. In the restaging scenario, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.45 (0.27-0.58), respectively, considering the identification of prostate cancer in each described situation. We also obtained specificity and sensitivity results for PSA subdivisions. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET provides higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional imaging for prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Prostatic Neoplasms , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Positron-Emission Tomography , Prospective Studies , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Radiopharmaceuticals , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I2 = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I2 = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.
Subject(s)
Prostate , Prostatic Neoplasms , Biopsy , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Prospective Studies , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , Watchful WaitingABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronavirus Infections , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic useABSTRACT
The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.
Subject(s)
Amyloidosis , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Amyloidosis/drug therapy , Brazil , HumansSubject(s)
Encephalitis , Hashimoto Disease , Encephalitis/diagnosis , Hashimoto Disease/diagnosis , HumansABSTRACT
The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.