Interventions for depression and anxiety among people with diabetes mellitus: Review of systematic reviews.

This review of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials summarized the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of interventions to treat depression and/or anxiety in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The sources of information searched were the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and LILACS, until up to December 1st, 2022. The interventions were compared with placebo, active control or usual care. The measured primary outcomes were improvement in depression and anxiety remission, reduction of diabetes-specific emotional distress; and improvement in quality of life. Two reviewers, independently, selected the reviews, extracted their data, and assessed their methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. A narrative synthesis of the findings was performed, according to the type of intervention and type of diabetes. Thirteen systematic reviews that included 28,307 participants were analyzed. The reviews had at least one critical methodological flaw. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy improved the mainly depression, glycemic values (n = 5 reviews) and anxiety (n = 1), in adults and elderly with diabetes. Collaborative care (n = 2) and health education (n = 1) improved depression and glycemic values, in adults with diabetes. Pharmacological treatment (n = 2) improved depression outcomes only. The quality of the evidence was low to moderate, when reported. The interventions reported in literature and mainly the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can be effective to treat people with diabetes and depression; however, some findings must be confirmed. This study can guide patients, their caregivers and health professionals in making decisions concerning the use of these interventions in the mental healthcare of people with diabetes. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021224587).

Frequency of osteonecrosis in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of osteonecrosis of the jaw in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures. METHODS: This systematic review searched the sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library, with no restriction on language or publication date. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected the studies, extracted their data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (5391 participants) were included. The most reported bisphosphonates were zoledronate (n = 17 studies) and alendronate (n = 19) for treating cancers (n = 11) and osteoporosis (n = 16), respectively. Twelve studies were of low methodological quality. The frequency of osteonecrosis was 2.7% (95% CI: 0.9-5.2%) and proved higher for intravenous [6.9% (0.7-17.3%)] than oral [0.2% (0.9-5.2%)] bisphosphonate use. No association between longer treatment duration and greater frequency of osteonecrosis was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher frequency of osteonecrosis was observed in intravenous bisphosphonate users submitted to dental extraction. Further studies collecting more detailed information on the bisphosphonates used and of greater methodological rigor are warranted to confirm these findings and better inform prescribers, dental surgeons, and other professionals on risks of bisphosphonate use in this patient group.