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










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pituitary ; 21(6): 642-652, 2018 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30159696

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Acromegaly is a rare disease that results in the enlargement of body extremities and in organomegaly. Treatments include surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy, which are all onerous. Therefore, well-conducted cost-analyses are crucial in the decision-making process. METHODS: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly therapies was performed following PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations. The search for records was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (May 2018). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joana Briggs Institute Tool. RESULTS: From initial 547 records, 16 studies were included in the review. The studies could present more than one economic evaluation, and encompassed cost-effectiveness (n = 13), cost-utility (n = 5), and cost-consequence (n = 1) analyses. All studies were model-based and evaluated only direct medical costs. Eleven records did not mention discounting and only 10 performed sensitivity analyses. The characteristic of the studies, the cost-effectiveness results and the studies' conclusions are described and commented upon. The main limitation of the studies was discussed and aspects to improve in future studies were pointed out. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness studies on acromegaly have been performed in several scenarios, evaluating different phases of treatment. However, the studies present limitations and, overall, were considered of moderate quality. Further economic models should be developed following health economics guidelines recommendations, and must improve transparency.


Assuntos
Acromegalia/tratamento farmacológico , Acromegalia/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/análogos & derivados , Hormônio do Crescimento Humano/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Octreotida/uso terapêutico , Peptídeos Cíclicos/uso terapêutico , Somatostatina/análogos & derivados , Somatostatina/uso terapêutico
2.
CNS Drugs ; 32(9): 813-826, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30014314

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A broad range of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is available. However, the efficacy and safety of traditional DMTs compared with the recently developed DMTs remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Therefore, we have synthesised available evidence of clinical outcomes for DMTs in adults with RRMS. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and a manual search were performed. Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials assessing DMTs as monotherapies were conducted. SUCRA and GRADE were used to rank therapies and to assess quality of general evidence, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analyses. The most effective therapies for the outcome of annualised relapse rate were alemtuzumab (96% probability), natalizumab (96%) and ocrelizumab (85%), compared with all other therapies (hazard ratio versus placebo, 0.31, 0.31 and 0.37, respectively; p < 0.05 for all comparisons) (high-quality evidence). However, no significant differences among these three therapies were found. Discontinuation due to adverse events revealed similarity across all therapies, except for alemtuzumab, which showed less discontinuation when compared with interferon-1a intramuscular (relative risk 0.37; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence shows that alemtuzumab, natalizumab and ocrelizumab present the highest efficacy among DMTs, and other meta-analyses are required regarding adverse events frequency, to better understand the safety of therapies. Based on efficacy profile, guidelines should consider a three-category classification (i.e. high, intermediate and low efficacy).


Assuntos
Fatores Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Esclerose Múltipla Recidivante-Remitente/tratamento farmacológico , Meta-Análise em Rede , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos
3.
JAMA Dermatol ; 149(3): 341-9, 2013 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23553036

RESUMO

IMPORTANCE: Considering that most randomized controlled trials compare antifungals with placebo instead of other antifungals, conventional meta-analysis is insufficient to define superiority between the evaluated strategies. To our knowledge, this is the first mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis on antifungal treatments in the literature and shows all the evidence available at the time of the study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of topical antifungals used in dermatophytosis treatment, using mixed-treatment comparisons. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a comprehensive search (up to July 31, 2012) for all entries in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Randomized controlled trials that compared topical antifungals with one another or with placebo in dermatophytosis treatment were selected for analysis. Methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad scale. We excluded studies that scored less than 3 points. The outcomes evaluated were mycologic cure at the end of treatment and sustained cure. A random-effects Bayesian mixed-treatment comparisons model was applied to combine placebo-controlled and direct topical antifungals comparison trials. RESULTS Pooled data of the 65 trials identified did not show any statistically significant differences among the antifungals concerning the outcome of mycologic cure at the end of treatment. Regarding the sustained cure outcome, butenafine hydrochloride and terbinafine hydrochloride were significantly more efficacious than were clotrimazole, oxiconazole nitrate, and sertaconazole nitrate. Terbinafine also demonstrated statistical superiority when compared with ciclopirox (ciclopiroxolamine), and naftifine hydrochloride showed better response compared with oxiconazole. No inconsistency was detected in the network of evidence for both outcomes, sustaining the validity of the mixed-treatment comparisons results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: With the outcome mycologic cure at the end of treatment, there was no significant difference among the antifungals. Butenafine, naftifine, and terbinafine might be the best strategies for maintaining cured status. Because of the different costs of the antifungals, pharmacoeconomic analysis is required to identify the most efficient strategy for dermatophytosis management.


Assuntos
Antifúngicos/uso terapêutico , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Dermatomicoses/tratamento farmacológico , Administração Cutânea , Antifúngicos/administração & dosagem , Teorema de Bayes , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA