Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(1): e18569, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31895800


An adverse drug reactions avoidability tool called the Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool (LAAT) was recently developed (for research purposes), and subsequently validated with mixed interrater reliability (IRR). We investigated the comparative IRR of this tool in an inpatient cohort to ascertain its practical application in this setting.The patient population was comprised of 44 ADR drug pairs drawn from an observational prospective cohort of patents with ADR attending a Weill Cornell Medicine-affiliated tertiary medical Centre in Doha Qatar (Hamad General Hospital). Using the LAAT, and modified Hallas tools, 4 independent raters (2 Clinical Pharmacologists, and 2 General Physicians) assessed and scored the 44 ADR-drug pairs. Agreement proportions between the rating pairs were evaluated as well individual/overall kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients. We evaluated the weight of each of the 7 questions on the LAAT tool to ascertain its determinative role.Across 44 ADR-drug pairs, the overall median Fleiss kappa using the LAAT, and modified Hallas tools were 0.67 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.55, 0.76), 0.36 (IQR, 0.23-0.71) respectively. The overall percentage pairwise agreement with the LAAT and modified Hallas tools were 78.5%, and 62.2% respectively. Exact pairwise agreement occurred in 37 out of 44 (range 0.71-1), and 27 of 44 (0.53-0.77) ADR-drug pairs using the LAAT and modified Hallas tools respectively. Using the LAAT tool, the overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.68 (CI 0.55, 0.79), and 0.37 (CI 0.22, 0.53) with the modified Hallas tool.We report a higher proportion of "possible" and "definite" avoidability outcomes of adverse drug reactions compared with the modified Hallas, or that reported by developers of the LAAT tool. Although initially developed for research purposes, our report has suggested for the first time a potential applicability of this tool in clinical environment as well.

Rotas de Resultados Adversos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Algoritmos , Feminino , Humanos , Pacientes Internados/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Estudos Prospectivos , Catar , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(51): e18198, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31860967


BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors (SGLT2I) in improving glycaemic control and mortality in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. None have incorporated the most recent study or utilized the generalized pairwise modeling methodology network meta-analysis (NMA), as well as a novel bias risk assessment approach. METHODS: We propose to conduct literature search of all randomized controlled clinical trials published in English language evaluating the efficacy of (SGLT2I) versus placebo or usual standard of care from the inception of following databases to September 30, 2019: Controlled Clinical Trials Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), PubMed. Two reviewers will independently search these databases to identify studies that satisfy pre-specified eligibility criteria. Study bias risk assessment amongst other methodology quality evaluation of the studies will be carried out using a novel risk bias assessment tool. RESULTS: We anticipate that the result of this review will provide additional insight into the ranking of the efficacy of various (SGLT2I) in type II diabetic patients especially as it relates to mortality, glycemic control, and body weight reduction. CONCLUSION: The result of this review will be useful informing therapeutic decisions by policy makers with regards to commissioning of diabetic care.Prospero registration number: CRD42019139708.

Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Viés , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(50): e18322, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31852121


BACKGROUND: Drug induced liver injury (DILI) is an increasing cause of acute liver injury especially with increasing need for pharmacotherapy of widening comorbidities amongst our ever-aging population. Uncertainty however remains regarding both acceptable and widely agreeable diagnostic algorithms as well a clear understanding of mechanistic insights that most accurately underpins it. In this review, we have explored the potential role of emerging novel markers of DILI and how they could possibly be integrated into clinical care of patients. METHODS: We explored PUBMED and all other relevant databases for scientific studies that explored potential utility of novel biomarkers of DILI, and subsequently carried out a narrative synthesis of this data. As this is a narrative review with no recourse to patient identifiable information, no ethics committee's approval was sought or required. RESULTS: Novel biomarkers such as microRNA-122 (miR-122) profiles, high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH), and cytokeratin-18 (K-18), amongst others do have the potential for reducing diagnostic uncertainties associated with DILI. CONCLUSION: With the increasing validation of some of the novel liver biomarkers such as K-18, mir-122, HMGB-1, and GLDH, there is the potential for improvement in the diagnostic uncertainty commonly associated with cases of DILI.

Doença Hepática Induzida por Substâncias e Drogas/diagnóstico , Glutamato Desidrogenase/análise , Proteína HMGB1/análise , Queratina-18/análise , MicroRNAs/análise , Medição de Risco/métodos , Biomarcadores/análise , Humanos