Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 44
Filtrar
1.
Int J Health Serv ; : 20731420980682, 2020 Dec 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33323016

RESUMO

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.

5.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 261, 2020 Nov 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33189147

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients at risk for postoperative delirium is essential because adequate well-timed interventions could reduce the occurrence of delirium and the related detrimental outcomes. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of prognostic studies evaluating the predictive value of risk factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery. We will identify eligible studies through systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from their inception to May 2020. Eligible studies will enroll older adults (≥ 50 years) undergoing elective surgery and assess pre-operative prognostic risk factors for delirium and incidence of delirium measured by a trained individual using a validated delirium assessment tool. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We will contact chief investigators of eligible studies requesting to share the IPD to a secured repository. We will use one-stage approach for IPD meta-analysis and will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: Since we are using existing anonymized data, ethical approval is not required for this study. Our results can be used to guide clinical decisions about the most efficient way to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020171366 .

6.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 222, 2020 09 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32988419

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory chronic condition that affects the skin of children and adults and has an important impact on the quality of life. Treatments for AD are based on environmental controls, topical and systemic therapies, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). However, it remains unclear the effectiveness and adverse events of AIT and all conventional topical treatments compared with placebo and each other for AD. METHODS: We will search five electronic databases [Central Cochrane register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS] from inception until November 2019 with no language restriction, and we will include experimental studies [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-RCTs]. The primary outcome is global and specific skin symptoms assessment. Secondary outcomes are hospital length of stay, quality of life, and adverse events. Reviewers independently will extract data from the studies that meet our inclusion criteria and will assess the risk of bias of individual primary studies. We will conduct random effects pairwise meta-analyses for the observed pairwise comparisons with at least two trials. Then, we will perform random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain treatment effects for all possible comparisons and to provide a hierarchy of all interventions for each outcome. Possible incoherence between direct and indirect sources of evidence will be investigated locally (if possible) and globally. To investigate sources of statistical heterogeneity, we will perform a series of meta-regression analyses based on pre-specified important effect modifiers. Two authors will appraise the certainty of the evidence for each outcome applying the GRADE's framework for NMA. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review will shed the light on the effectiveness and adverse events of all possible comparisons for treating AD and on the quality of the collated evidence for recommendations. It will also provide critical information to health care professionals to comprehend and manage this disease at different age stages, treatment type, duration, and severity of atopic dermatitis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Protocol ID CRD42019147106.

7.
BMJ ; 370: m2980, 2020 07 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32732190

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference -4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (-2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (-1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Glucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.


Assuntos
Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/patogenicidade , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./estatística & dados numéricos , China/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Combinação de Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/estatística & dados numéricos , Glucocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Metanálise em Rede , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Padrão de Cuidado , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(9): 730-738, 2020 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32805127

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

9.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(9): 721-729, 2020 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32805130

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for acute musculoskeletal injuries and may result in long-term use and consequent harms. PURPOSE: To explore factors associated with persistent opioid use after its prescription for acute musculoskeletal injury. DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple electronic databases, without language restrictions, from inception to 6 January 2020, and reference lists of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of adults with opioid prescriptions for outpatient acute musculoskeletal injuries, in an adjusted model, that explored risk factors for prolonged use. DATA EXTRACTION: 6 reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data, rated the quality of studies, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 14 cohorts with 13 263 393 participants were included. The overall prevalence of prolonged opioid use after musculoskeletal injury for high-risk populations (that is, patients receiving workers' compensation benefits, Veterans Affairs claimants, or patients with high rates of concurrent substance use disorder) was 27% (95% CI, 18% to 37%). The prevalence among low-risk populations was 6% (CI, 4% to 8%; P for interaction < 0.001). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased odds of persistent opioid use with older age (absolute risk increase [ARI] for every 10-year increase, 1.1% [CI, 0.7% to 1.5%]) and physical comorbidity (ARI, 0.9% [CI, 0.1% to 1.7%]). Low-certainty evidence suggested increased risk for persistent opioid use with past or current substance use disorder (ARI, 10.5% [CI, 4.2% to 19.8%]), prescriptions lasting more than 7 days (median ARI, 4.5%), and higher morphine milligram equivalents per day. LIMITATION: Sparse, heterogeneous data with suboptimal adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Avoiding prescribing opioids for acute musculoskeletal injuries to patients with past or current substance use disorder, and restricting duration to 7 days or less and using lower doses when they are prescribed, are potentially important targets to reduce rates of persistent opioid use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018104968).

10.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(5): 779-801, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32798067

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
11.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(3): 346-357, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32611524

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) after breast cancer surgery are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to further elucidate this issue. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2018, for observational studies reporting persistent pain (≥3 months) after breast cancer surgery. We used random-effects meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to rate quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 187 observational studies with 297 612 breast cancer patients. The prevalence of PPSP ranged from 2% to 78%, median 37% (inter-quartile range: 22-48%); the pooled prevalence was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-39%). The pooled pain intensity was 3.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI: 3.6-4.2 cm). Moderate-quality evidence supported the subgroup effects of PPSP prevalence for localized pain vs any pain (29% vs 44%), moderate or greater vs any pain (26% vs 44%), clinician-assessed vs patient-reported pain (23% vs 36%), and whether patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy vs axillary lymph node dissection (26% vs 43%). The adjusted analysis found that the prevalence of patient-reported PPSP (any severity/location) was 46% (95% CI: 36-56%), and the prevalence of patient-reported moderate-to-severe PPSP at any location was 27% (95% CI: 10-43%). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that almost half of all women undergoing breast cancer surgery develop persistent post-surgical pain, and about one in four develop moderate-to-severe persistent post-surgical pain; the higher prevalence was associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Future studies should explore whether nerve sparing for axillary procedures reduces persistent post-surgical pain after breast cancer surgery.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Dor Pós-Operatória/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Mama/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Prevalência , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
12.
Can J Anaesth ; 67(9): 1217-1248, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32542464

RESUMO

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Oxigenoterapia/métodos , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Aerossóis , Cânula , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Humanos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Insuficiência Respiratória/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência Respiratória/virologia
13.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E734-E744, 2020 07 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32493740

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes. RESULTS: In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. INTERPRETATION: To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.


Assuntos
Antivirais , Betacoronavirus/efeitos dos fármacos , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Lopinavir/farmacologia , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Amidas , Antivirais/farmacologia , Cloroquina , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina , Indóis , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Pandemias , Pirazinas , Ribavirina , Ritonavir
14.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E756-E767, 2020 07 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32409522

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/efeitos dos fármacos , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , /tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/fisiopatologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/fisiopatologia , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Influenza Humana/fisiopatologia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/fisiopatologia , Respiração Artificial , Medição de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento
15.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E745-E755, 2020 07 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32444482

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus/patogenicidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Infecções Respiratórias/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Infecções por Coronavirus/fisiopatologia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Imunização Passiva , Influenza Humana/fisiopatologia , Influenza Humana/terapia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/fisiopatologia , Infecções Respiratórias/fisiopatologia , Infecções Respiratórias/virologia , Medição de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(43): e17647, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31651885

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting. RESULTS: Using a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo. CONCLUSION: This NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Preparações de Ação Retardada , Humanos , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
17.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(39): e17064, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31574805

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews have explored the efficacy of treatments on symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a chronic and often disabling condition. Previous network meta-analysis (NMA) had limitations such as focusing on pharmacological or psychotherapies. Our review is aims to explore the relative effectiveness of both pharmacological and psychotherapies and we will establish the differential efficacy of interventions for PTSD in consideration of both symptom reduction and functional recovery. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment interventions for PTSD. We will systematically search Medline, PILOT, Embase, CINHAL, AMED, Psychinfo, Health Star, DARE and CENTRAL to identify trials that: (1) enroll adult patients with PTSD, and (2) randomize them to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Independent reviewers will screen trials for eligibility, assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane instrument, and extract data. Our outcomes of interest include PTSD symptom reduction, quality of life, functional recovery, social and occupational impairment, return to work and all-cause drop outs. RESULTS: We will conduct frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to assess relative effects of competing interventions. We will use a priori hypotheses to explore heterogeneity between studies, and assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will determine the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic options for PTSD on both symptom reduction and functional recovery. Our results will be helpful to clinicians and patients with PTSD, by providing a high-quality evidence synthesis to guide shared-care decision making.


Assuntos
Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Protocolos Clínicos , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Avaliação da Deficiência , Humanos , Metanálise em Rede , Psicoterapia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Retorno ao Trabalho , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/tratamento farmacológico
18.
Can J Neurol Sci ; 46(4): 415-422, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31293233

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Post-craniotomy pain can be severe and is often undermanaged. Opioids can interfere with neurological monitoring and are associated with adverse effects. This systematic review aimed to identify measures of opioid-free analgesia and compare their effectiveness with opioid analgesia for post-craniotomy pain in patients with supratentorial tumors. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception to February 14, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating opioid versus non-opioid analgesia post-supratentorial craniotomy. Two reviewers independently carried out study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Outcomes were pain control (changes to pain scores or use of rescue analgesia) and adverse effects. Considering the number of studies and heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was done without pooling and results were summarized using tables. Non-opioids were assessed for the potential to be equivalent to opioid-based analgesics for pain relief and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 467 RCTs, 4 met our inclusion criteria (n = 186 patients). Patients with scalp blocks (2 RCTs) had less post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but scalp block was not superior to morphine for analgesia. Acetaminophen (1 RCT) was less likely to induce PONV but provided inadequate pain relief compared to morphine and sufentanil. Dexmedetomidine (1 RCT) was not superior to remifentanil for analgesia although it delayed time to rescue analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine have the potential to eliminate the need for opioid analgesia. Multimodal analgesia should be considered as significant opioid-sparing effects have been shown.


Assuntos
Analgésicos não Entorpecentes/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Craniotomia/efeitos adversos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Supratentoriais/cirurgia , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/métodos
19.
JAMA Intern Med ; 2019 Jun 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31233091

RESUMO

Importance: US guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening. Objective: To estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018. Study Selection: Randomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Knowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice. Results: Of 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.

20.
BMJ Open ; 9(4): e024441, 2019 04 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30948570

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018094412.


Assuntos
Dor Aguda/terapia , Dor Musculoesquelética/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Humanos , Metanálise em Rede , Projetos de Pesquisa , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA