Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 2.432
Filtrar
1.
Minerva Surg ; 76(1): 57-61, 2021 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33754590

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Obesity represents a risk factor for COVID-19 infection. Therefore, in order to reduce COVID-19 related comorbidities in obese population a continuation of obesity treatment is needed. However, bariatric procedures were postponed because of COVID-19 restrictions, delaying treatment for obese patients seeking for surgery. This study aimed to test the feasibility of a telematics pre-operative psychological and nutritional assessment as an alternative tool during COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Twenty-six patients were contacted. The pre-operative assessment consisted in 3-weekly one-to-one online sessions and a final in-person multidisciplinary session. The protocol feasibility has been evaluated on the following outcome: rejection rate (%), dropout rate (%), compliance and satisfaction's degree. RESULTS: Eighteen participants completed the whole protocol and 10% dropped-out. Seventy-two percent of participants obtained an excess weight loss ≥5%. All participants were satisfied of the telematics assessment. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency has changed standard hospital procedures and this study could represent a landmark for an online pre-operative assessment method to adopt in case of new restrictions.


Assuntos
Cirurgia Bariátrica , Avaliação Nutricional , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Testes Psicológicos , Mídias Sociais , Adulto , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Intervenção Baseada em Internet , Masculino , Cooperação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Satisfação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Prospectivos , Perda de Peso
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(11): e25186, 2021 Mar 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33726008

RESUMO

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to ascertain changes in symptoms of patients with borderline personality disorder undergoing psychodynamic day treatment with a duration of 9 months and the factors that predict clinical outcome or dropouts from the program.In an observational study, demographic characteristics (age, number of psychiatric hospitalizations, number of suicide attempts, current involvement in work or study activities), day doses of antipsychotic and antidepressant medication, psychiatric symptoms, and social functioning (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales), and symptoms of dissociation (Dissociative Experiences Scale) were assessed in patients at the beginning of treatment (N = 105). Further, psychiatric symptoms and social functioning were assessed at 3 stages: beginning of the program, end of the program, and 1-year follow-up. To study the differences between baseline values and values at the end of the treatment and follow-up values, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. To discover baseline factors related to the effect of the treatment, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. To evaluate the differences between patients who completed the program (N = 67) and patients who dropped out (N = 38), differences in baseline factors between both groups were compared, using the Mann-Whitney test for independent samples.Improvement in symptoms (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales - version for external evaluators) at the end of the therapy (N = 67, P < .001) and at the 1-year follow-up (N = 46, P < .001) was found. Experience of an intimate relationship was positively related to clinical improvement at follow-up examinations (P < .001). Predictors of dropout included a higher number of psychiatric hospitalizations (P = .004), suicide attempts (P = .004), more severe pretreatment symptoms (P = .002), and symptoms of dissociation (P = .046).The results indicate that a psychodynamic day treatment is feasible for the treatment of less clinically disturbed patients with a history of intimate relationships. Patients with a higher number of previous psychiatric hospitalizations, more suicide attempts in the past, more severe pretreatment symptoms, and symptoms of dissociation are more likely not to complete the program.


Assuntos
Transtorno da Personalidade Borderline/terapia , Hospital Dia/métodos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Psicoterapia Psicodinâmica/métodos , Adulto , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Análise de Regressão , Fatores de Risco , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Tentativa de Suicídio/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD012844, 2021 02 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33539561

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Commercial video games are a vastly popular form of recreational activity. Whilst concerns persist regarding possible negative effects of video games, they have been suggested to provide cognitive benefits to users. They are also frequently employed as control interventions in comparisons of more complex cognitive or psychological interventions. If independently effective, video games - being both engaging and relatively inexpensive - could provide a much more cost-effective add-on intervention to standard treatment when compared to costly, cognitive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of video games (alone or as an additional intervention) compared to standard care alone or other interventions including, but not limited to, cognitive remediation or cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (March 2017, August 2018, August 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials focusing on video games for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes seven trials conducted between 2009 and 2018 (total = 468 participants, range 32 to 121). Study duration varied from six weeks to twelve weeks. All interventions in the included trials were given in addition to standard care, including prescribed medication. In trials video games tend to be the control for testing efficacy of complex, cognitive therapies; only two small trials evaluated commercial video games as the intervention. We categorised video game interventions into 'non-exergame' (played statically) and 'exergame' (the players use bodily movements to control the game). Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important changes in: general functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, mental state, quality of life, and physical fitness as well as clinically important adverse effects. We found no clear difference between non-exergames and cognitive remediation in general functioning scores (Strauss Carpenter Outcome Scale) (MD 0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to 1.46; participants = 86; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or social functioning scores (Specific Levels of Functioning Scale) (MD -3.13, 95% CI -40.17 to 33.91; participants = 53; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There was a clear difference favouring cognitive remediation for cognitive functioning (improved on at least one domain of MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery Test) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99; participants = 42; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). For mental state, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) overall scores showed no clear difference between treatment groups (MD 0.20, 95% CI -3.89 to 4.28; participants = 269; studies = 4, low-quality evidence). Quality of life ratings (Quality of Life Scale) similarly showed no clear intergroup difference (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.42; participants = 87; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported; we chose leaving the study early as a proxy measure. The attrition rate by end of treatment was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; participants = 395; studies = 5, low-quality evidence). One small trial compared exergames with standard care, but few outcomes were reported. No clear difference between interventions was seen for cognitive functioning (measured by MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery Test) (MD 2.90, 95% CI -1.27 to 7.07; participants = 33; studies = 1, low-quality evidence), however a benefit in favour of exergames was found for average change in physical fitness (aerobic fitness) (MD 3.82, 95% CI 1.75 to 5.89; participants = 33; studies = 1, low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported; we chose leaving the study early as a proxy measure. The attrition rate by end of treatment was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.51; participants = 33; studies = 1). Another small trial compared exergames with non-exergames. Only one of our main outcomes was reported - physical fitness, which was measured by average time taken to walk 3 metres. No clear intergroup difference was identified at six-week follow-up (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.17; participants = 28; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). No trials reported adverse effects. We chose leaving the study early as a proxy outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that non-exergames may have a less beneficial effect on cognitive functioning than cognitive remediation, but have comparable effects for all other outcomes. These data are from a small number of trials, and the evidence is graded as of low or very low quality and is very likely to change with more data. It is difficult to currently establish if the more sophisticated cognitive approaches do any more good - or harm - than 'static' video games for people with schizophrenia. Where players use bodily movements to control the game (exergames), there is very limited evidence suggesting a possible benefit of exergames compared to standard care in terms of cognitive functioning and aerobic fitness. However, this finding must be replicated in trials with a larger sample size and that are conducted over a longer time frame. We cannot draw any firm conclusions regarding the effects of video games until more high-quality evidence is available. There are ongoing studies that may provide helpful data in the near future.


Assuntos
Remediação Cognitiva/métodos , Esquizofrenia/terapia , Jogos de Vídeo , Atividades Cotidianas , Adulto , Viés , Intervalos de Confiança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Aptidão Física , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Psicologia do Esquizofrênico , Padrão de Cuidado , Adulto Jovem
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013560, 2021 02 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33580709

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the most common morbidities of the postnatal period. It has been associated with adverse outcomes for women, children, the wider family and society as a whole. Treatment is with psychosocial interventions or antidepressant medication, or both. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with placebo, treatment as usual or other forms of treatment. This is an update of a review last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial, or pharmacological), placebo, or treatment as usual for postnatal depression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in May 2020. We also searched international trials registries and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with depression during the first 12 months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the study reports. We requested missing information from study authors wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Where we identified sufficient comparable studies we pooled data and conducted random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (1016 women), the majority of which were from English-speaking, high-income countries; two were from middle-income countries. Women were recruited from a mix of community-based, primary care, maternity and outpatient settings. Most studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with treatment duration ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Meta-analysis showed that there may be a benefit of SSRIs over placebo in response (55% versus 43%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.66); remission (42% versus 27%; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.41); and reduced depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05; 4 studies, 251 women), at 5 to 12 weeks' follow-up. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis for adverse events due to variation in the reporting of this between studies. There was no evidence of a difference between acceptability of SSRI and placebo (27% versus 27%; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.64; 4 studies; 233 women). The certainty of all the evidence for SSRIs was low or very low due to the small number of included studies and a number of potential sources of bias, including high rates of attrition. There was insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of SSRIs compared with other classes of antidepressants and of antidepressants compared with other pharmacological interventions, complementary medicines, psychological and psychosocial interventions or treatment as usual. A substantial proportion of women experienced adverse effects but there was no evidence of differences in the number of adverse effects between treatment groups in any of the studies. Data on effects on children, including breastfed infants, parenting, and the wider family were limited, although no adverse effects were noted. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There remains limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in the management of postnatal depression, particularly for those with more severe depression. We found low-certainty evidence that SSRI antidepressants may be more effective in treating postnatal depression than placebo as measured by response and remission rates. However, the low certainty of the evidence suggests that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our effect estimate. There is a continued imperative to better understand whether, and for whom, antidepressants or other treatments are more effective for postnatal depression, and whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. In clinical practice, the findings of this review need to be contextualised by the extensive broader literature on antidepressants in the general population and perinatal clinical guidance, to inform an individualised risk-benefit clinical decision. Future RCTs should focus on larger samples, longer follow-up, comparisons with alternative treatment modalities and inclusion of child and parenting outcomes.


Assuntos
Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Depressão Pós-Parto/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Antidepressivos/efeitos adversos , Viés , Feminino , Humanos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013457, 2021 02 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33583058

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been associated, in part, with the dysfunction of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors at excitatory synapses and glutamate abnormalities. Medications related to glutamatergic neurotransmission, such as D-cycloserine - which is a partial agonist of the NMDA glutamate receptor - are potential treatment options for the core features of ASD. However, the potential effect of D-cycloserine on the social and communication skills deficits of individuals with ASD has not been thoroughly explored and no systematic reviews of the evidence have been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of D-cycloserine compared with placebo for social and communication skills in individuals with ASD. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications and contacted the authors of the included study, Minshawi 2016, to identify any additional studies. In addition, we contacted pharmaceutical companies, searched manufacturers' websites and sources of reports of adverse events.  SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any duration and dose of D-cycloserine, with or without adjunct treatment, compared to placebo in individuals with ASD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted relevant data, assessed the risk of bias, graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and analysed and evaluated the data. We provide a narrative report of the findings as only one study is included in this review. MAIN RESULTS: We included a single RCT (Minshawi 2016) funded by the United States Department of Defense. It was conducted at two sites in the USA: Indiana University School of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre. In the included study, 67 children with ASD aged between 5 and 11 years were randomised to receive either 10 weeks (10 doses) of (50 mg) D-cycloserine plus social skills training, or placebo plus social skills training. Randomisation was carried out 1:1 between D-cycloserine and placebo arms, and outcome measures were recorded at one-week post-treatment. The 'risk of bias' assessment for the included study was low for five domains and unclear for two domains. The study (67 participants) reported low certainty evidence of little to no difference between the two groups for all outcomes measured at one week post-treatment: social interaction impairment (mean difference (MD) 3.61 (assessed with the Social Responsiveness Scale), 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to 12.82); social communication impairment (MD -1.08 (measured using the inappropriate speech subscale of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)), 95% CI -2.34 to 0.18); restricted, repetitive, stereotyped patterns of behaviour (MD 0.12 (measured by the ABC stereotypy subscale), 95% CI -1.71 to 1.95); serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31); non-core symptoms of ASD (RR 0.97 (measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93); and tolerability of D-cycloserine (RR 0.32 (assessed by the number of dropouts), 95% CI 0.01 to 7.68).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude with certainty whether D-cycloserine is effective for individuals with ASD. This review included low certainty data from only one study with methodological issues and imprecision. The added value of this review compared to the included study is we assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Moreover, if we find new trials in future updates of this review, we could potentially pool the data, which may either strengthen or decrease the evidence for our findings.


Assuntos
Transtorno do Espectro Autista/tratamento farmacológico , Comunicação , Ciclosserina/uso terapêutico , Habilidades Sociais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Ciclosserina/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Indiana , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ohio , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Comportamento Estereotipado/efeitos dos fármacos
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013281, 2021 02 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33591592

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: One hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis). An additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants). There was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Low-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Very low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs. For studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Países em Desenvolvimento , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/prevenção & controle , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/uso terapêutico , Antioxidantes/uso terapêutico , Glicemia/análise , Índice de Massa Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Jejum/sangue , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Melatonina/uso terapêutico , Transtornos Mentais/complicações , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Esquizofrenia/complicações , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico
7.
J Nerv Ment Dis ; 209(2): 92-99, 2021 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33502140

RESUMO

ABSTRACT: Mental health clients with serious mental illness in urban settings experience multiple chronic stresses related to poverty, unemployment, discrimination, homelessness, incarceration, hospitalization, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain syndromes, traumatic brain injury, and other problems. Substance use disorder exacerbates these difficulties. This study examined the efficacy of algorithm-driven substance use disorder treatments for 305 inner-city mental health clients with multiple challenges. Researchers assessed substance use quarterly using a combination of standardized self-reports and case manager ratings. Of the 305 multiply impaired clients who began treatment, 200 (66%) completed 2 years of treatment. One fourth (n = 53) of the completers were responders who developed abstinence and improved community function; one half (n = 97) were partial responders, who reduced substance use but did not become abstinent; and one fourth (n = 50) were nonresponders. Evidence-based interventions for substance use disorder can be effective for multiply impaired, inner-city clients, but numerous complications may hinder recovery.


Assuntos
Transtornos Mentais/complicações , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Algoritmos , Feminino , Humanos , Entrevista Psicológica , Masculino , Transtornos Mentais/diagnóstico , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Áreas de Pobreza , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/complicações , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/diagnóstico , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD001415, 2021 01 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33434292

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs.


Assuntos
Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapêutico , Ácidos Cicloexanocarboxílicos/uso terapêutico , Epilepsia Resistente a Medicamentos/tratamento farmacológico , Epilepsias Parciais/tratamento farmacológico , Gabapentina/uso terapêutico , Ácido gama-Aminobutírico/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Anticonvulsivantes/administração & dosagem , Anticonvulsivantes/efeitos adversos , Criança , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Gabapentina/administração & dosagem , Gabapentina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD012569, 2020 10 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33089502

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants;  moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants;  and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants,  to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty.  More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.


Assuntos
Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Renina/antagonistas & inibidores , Idoso , Amidas/efeitos adversos , Amidas/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Anti-Hipertensivos/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Causas de Morte , Feminino , Fumaratos/efeitos adversos , Fumaratos/uso terapêutico , Frequência Cardíaca/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Irbesartana/uso terapêutico , Falência Renal Crônica/epidemiologia , Lisinopril/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Ramipril/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD010315, 2020 09 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32905623

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Anti-Hipertensivos/efeitos adversos , Viés , Pressão Sanguínea/fisiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Diástole , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Hipertensão/mortalidade , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Valores de Referência , Sístole
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD012658, 2020 09 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32909630

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the absence of treatment, endometrial hyperplasia (EH) can progress to endometrial cancer, particularly in the presence of histologic nuclear atypia. The development of EH results from exposure of the endometrium to oestrogen unopposed by progesterone. Oral progestogens have been used as treatment for EH without atypia, and in some cases of EH with atypia in women who wish to preserve fertility or who cannot tolerate surgery. EH without atypia is associated with a low risk of progression to atypia and cancer; EH with atypia is where the cells are structurally abnormal, and has a higher risk of developing cancer. Oral progestogen is not always effective at reversing the hyperplasia, can be associated with side effects, and depends on patient adherence. The levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is an alternative method of administration of progestogen and may have some advantages over non-intrauterine progestogens. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with endometrial hyperplasia (EH) with or without atypia compared to medical treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings of 10 relevant organisations. We handsearched references in relevant published studies. We also searched ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, and other trial registries. We performed the final search in May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials of women with a histological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia comparing LNG-IUS with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were regression of EH and adverse effects associated with the LNG-IUS device (such as pelvic inflammatory disease, device expulsion, uterine perforation) when compared to treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. Secondary outcomes included hysterectomy, hormone-related adverse effects (such as bleeding/spotting, pelvic pain, breast tenderness, ovarian cysts, weight gain, acne), withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, satisfaction with treatment, and cost or resource use. We rated the overall quality of evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (1657 women aged 22 to 75 years) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies had insufficient data for meta-analysis, thus the quantitative analysis included 11 RCTs. All trials evaluated treatment duration of six months or less. The evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding and poor reporting of study methods), inconsistency and imprecision. LNG-IUS versus non-intrauterine progestogens Primary outcomes Regression of endometrial hyperplasia The LNG-IUS probably improves regression of EH compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at short-term follow-up (up to six months) (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.10 to 4.13; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs, 1108 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if regression of EH following treatment with a non-intrauterine progestogen is assumed to be 72%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 85% and 92%. Regression of EH may be improved by LNG-IUS compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at long-term follow-up (12 months) (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.75 to 8.23; 1 RCT, 138 participants; low-quality evidence), Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS There was insufficient evidence to determine device-related adverse effects; only one study reported on expulsion with insufficient data for analysis. Secondary outcomes The LNG-IUS may be associated with fewer hysterectomies (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I² = 19%; 4 RCTs, 452 participants; low-quality evidence), fewer withdrawals from treatment due to hormone-related adverse effects (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, 360 participants; low-quality evidence) and improved patient satisfaction with treatment (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.51 to 11.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; very low-quality evidence) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. The LNG-IUS may be associated with more bleeding/spotting (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.43; I² = 78%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) and less nausea (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. Data from single trials for mood swings and fatigue had a similar direction of effect as for bleeding/spotting, nausea and weight gain. There was insufficient evidence to determine cost or resource use. LNG-IUS versus no treatment Regression of endometrial hyperplasia One study demonstrated that the LNG-IUS is associated with regression of EH without atypia (OR 78.41, 95% CI 22.86 to 268.97; I² = 0%; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This study did not report on any other review outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that treatment with LNG-IUS used for three to six months is probably more effective than non-intrauterine progestogens at reversing EH in the short term (up to six months) and long term (up to two years). Adverse effects (device-related and hormone-related) were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. Very low quality to low-quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may reduce the risk of hysterectomy, and may be associated with more bleeding/spotting, less nausea, less withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, and increased satisfaction with treatment, compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding device-related adverse effects, or cost or resource use.


Assuntos
Anticoncepcionais Femininos/administração & dosagem , Dispositivos Intrauterinos Medicados , Levanogestrel/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Viés , Anticoncepcionais Femininos/efeitos adversos , Hiperplasia Endometrial/tratamento farmacológico , Hiperplasia Endometrial/patologia , Hiperplasia Endometrial/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Histerectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Expulsão de Dispositivo Intrauterino , Dispositivos Intrauterinos Medicados/efeitos adversos , Levanogestrel/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Náusea/etiologia , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Satisfação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Progestinas/administração & dosagem , Progestinas/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Indução de Remissão , Fatores de Tempo , Hemorragia Uterina/etiologia , Ganho de Peso , Adulto Jovem
12.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(39): e22344, 2020 Sep 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32991449

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Depression is a disease with a high incidence and easy to relapse. It not only affects the work and life of patients, but also brings a heavy economic burden. University is the peak of depression, and the prevalence of depression among college students is much higher than that of ordinary people. The purpose of this research is to evaluate depression symptoms, life satisfaction, self-confidence, substance use, social adjustment, and dropout rates of the use of psychological intervention for college students. METHODS: We will identify relevant trials from systematic searches in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. We will also search Clinical Trials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished data. Additional relevant studies will be searched through search engines (such as Google), and references included in the literature will be tracked. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included. There are no date restrictions. Use Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of bias tool to conduct risk of bias analysis. Use the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the quality of evidence. All statistical analysis will be performed using Stata (V.15.0.) and Review Manager (V.5.2.0). RESULTS: A total of 6238 records were obtained by searching the database and 27 records were obtained by other sources. After removing duplicate records, there are 4225 records remaining. We excluded 3945 records through abstract and title, leaving 280 full-text articles. CONCLUSION: This will be the first study to compare the effects of different psychological treatments on depression in college students. We hope that this study will guide clinical decision-making of psychotherapy to better treat depression in college students. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY202070134.


Assuntos
Depressão/terapia , Psicoterapia/métodos , Estudantes/psicologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Depressão/epidemiologia , Depressão/psicologia , Feminino , Carga Global da Doença/economia , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Metanálise em Rede , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Satisfação Pessoal , Prevalência , Psicoterapia/tendências , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Autoimagem , Ajustamento Social , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/epidemiologia , Universidades , Adulto Jovem
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD012417, 2020 09 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32897548

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: People living in 'humanitarian settings' in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of physical and psychological stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. A range of psychological and social interventions have been implemented with the aim to prevent the onset of mental disorders and/or lower psychological distress in populations at risk, and it is not known whether interventions are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of psychological and social interventions versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at preventing the onset of non-psychotic mental disorders in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and ProQuest PILOTS database with results incorporated from searches to February 2020. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological and social interventions versus control conditions to prevent the onset of mental disorders in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy) and at medium term (one to four months after intervention). No data were available at long term (six months or longer). We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In the present review we included seven RCTs with a total of 2398 participants, coming from both children/adolescents (five RCTs), and adults (two RCTs). Together, the seven RCTs compared six different psychosocial interventions against a control comparator (waiting list in all studies). All the interventions were delivered by paraprofessionals and, with the exception of one study, delivered at a group level. None of the included studies provided data on the efficacy of interventions to prevent the onset of mental disorders (incidence). For the primary outcome of acceptability, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social interventions and control at endpoint for children and adolescents (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 5 studies, 1372 participants; low-quality evidence) or adults (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.50; 2 studies, 767 participants; very low quality evidence). No information on adverse events related to the interventions was available. For children's and adolescents' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social intervention groups and control groups for reducing PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.18; 3 studies, 590 participants; very low quality evidence), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.31; 4 RCTs, 746 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.31; 3 studies, 632 participants; very low quality evidence) at study endpoint. In adults' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, psychological counselling may be effective for reducing depressive symptoms (MD -7.50, 95% CI -9.19 to -5.81; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (MD -6.10, 95% CI -7.57 to -4.63; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) at endpoint. No data were available for PTSD symptoms in the adult population. Owing to the small number of RCTs included in the present review, it was not possible to carry out neither sensitivity nor subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the seven prevention studies included in this review, none assessed whether prevention interventions reduced the incidence of mental disorders and there may be no evidence for any differences in acceptability. Additionally, for both child and adolescent populations and adult populations, a very small number of RCTs with low quality evidence on the review's secondary outcomes (changes in symptomatology at endpoint) did not suggest any beneficial effect for the studied prevention interventions. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of prevention studies eligible for inclusion in the review, by risk of bias in the studies, and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. Moreover, it is possible that random error had a role in distorting results, and that a more thorough picture of the efficacy of prevention interventions will be provided by future studies. For this reason, prevention studies are urgently needed to assess the impact of interventions on the incidence of mental disorders in children and adults, with extended periods of follow-up.


Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Transtornos Mentais/prevenção & controle , Psicoterapia , Problemas Sociais/psicologia , Estresse Fisiológico , Estresse Psicológico/complicações , Adolescente , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Ansiedade/diagnóstico , Ansiedade/epidemiologia , Viés , Criança , Depressão/diagnóstico , Depressão/epidemiologia , Países em Desenvolvimento/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/etiologia , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/diagnóstico , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/epidemiologia , Listas de Espera
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD008652, 2020 09 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32877573

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricaemia and hypertension. Hyperuricaemia affects 25% to 40% of those with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in those with normotension or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP), is an unanswered question. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in people with primary hypertension or prehypertension, compared with placebo. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL 2018, Issue 12, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS (1982 to May 2020), and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: To be included in this updated review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomised or quasi-randomised, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind, or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial design; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension plus hyperuricaemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men, and 5.5 mg/dL in children or adolescents); 7) outcome measures included change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic or diastolic BP, or both; or clinic-measured systolic or diastolic BP, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this review update, we screened 722 records, selected 26 full-text reports for evaluation. We identified no ongoing studies and did not add any new studies. We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling 211 people with hypertension or prehypertension, plus hyperuricaemia. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo, in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic BP (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4). Low-certainty evidence from two RCTs found that UA-lowering drugs reduced clinic-measured systolic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but results for clinic-measured diastolic BP were inconclusive (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70). High-certainty evidence from three RCTs found that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results regarding the occurrence of adverse events between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated Cochrane Review, the current RCT data are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy lowers BP. More studies are needed.


Assuntos
Alopurinol/uso terapêutico , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Hiperuricemia/tratamento farmacológico , Uricosúricos/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Criança , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Hiperuricemia/complicações , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Pré-Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
15.
N Engl J Med ; 383(18): 1735-1745, 2020 10 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32865374

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Implementation of appropriate oral anticoagulant treatment for the prevention of stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation is challenging because of concerns regarding bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial to compare a once-daily 15-mg dose of edoxaban with placebo in elderly Japanese patients (≥80 years of age) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not considered to be appropriate candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy at doses approved for stroke prevention. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of stroke or systemic embolism, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding according to the definition of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. RESULTS: A total of 984 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a daily dose of 15 mg of edoxaban (492 patients) or placebo (492 patients). A total of 681 patients completed the trial, and 303 discontinued (158 withdrew, 135 died, and 10 had other reasons); the numbers of patients who discontinued the trial were similar in the two groups. The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.61; P<0.001), and the annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 1.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.89; P = 0.09). There were substantially more events of gastrointestinal bleeding in the edoxaban group than in the placebo group. There was no substantial between-group difference in death from any cause (9.9% in the edoxaban group and 10.2% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: In very elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not appropriate candidates for standard doses of oral anticoagulants, a once-daily 15-mg dose of edoxaban was superior to placebo in preventing stroke or systemic embolism and did not result in a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding than placebo. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ELDERCARE-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02801669.).


Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial/tratamento farmacológico , Embolia/prevenção & controle , Inibidores do Fator Xa/administração & dosagem , Piridinas/administração & dosagem , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Tiazóis/administração & dosagem , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Fibrilação Atrial/mortalidade , Método Duplo-Cego , Embolia/etiologia , Inibidores do Fator Xa/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Seguimentos , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Piridinas/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Tiazóis/efeitos adversos
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD000544, 2020 08 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32856298

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.


Assuntos
Ácidos Aminossalicílicos/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/administração & dosagem , Colite Ulcerativa/tratamento farmacológico , Quimioterapia de Manutenção/métodos , Mesalamina/administração & dosagem , Administração Oral , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Viés , Colite Ulcerativa/prevenção & controle , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Adesão à Medicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Indução de Remissão/métodos , Sulfassalazina/administração & dosagem , Sulfassalazina/efeitos adversos
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD008016, 2020 08 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32840872

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Quimioterapia de Manutenção/métodos , Esquizofrenia/prevenção & controle , Antipsicóticos/efeitos adversos , Viés , Antagonistas de Dopamina/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas de Dopamina/uso terapêutico , Emprego/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico , Prevenção Secundária
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD000543, 2020 08 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32786164

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. It was previously found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis (UC). This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators (i.e. other formulations of 5-ASA) for induction of remission in active UC. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA versus conventional dosing regimens (two or three times daily). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 11 June 2019. We also searched references, conference proceedings and study registers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (aged 18 years or more) with active UC for inclusion. We included studies that compared oral 5-ASA therapy with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily to conventional dosing as well as dose-ranging studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes include failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. We analyzed five comparisons: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (e.g. MMX mesalamine, Ipocol, Balsalazide, Pentasa, Olsalazine and 5-ASA micropellets) versus comparator 5-ASA (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We include 54 studies (9612 participants). We rated most studies at low risk of bias. Seventy-one per cent (1107/1550) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% (695/837) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89; 2387 participants, 11 studies; high-certainty evidence). We also observed a dose-response trend for 5-ASA. There was no difference in clinical remission rates between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent (150/279) of 5-ASA participants failed to enter remission compared to 58% (144/247) of SASP participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04; 526 participants, 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference in remission rates between once-daily dosing and conventional dosing. Sixty per cent (533/881) of once-daily participants failed to enter clinical remission compared to 61% (538/880) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 1761 participants, 5 studies; high-certainty evidence). Eight per cent (15/179) of participants dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% (11/179) of conventionally-dosed participants (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86; 358 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent (507/1022) of participants in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% (491/946) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 1968 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once-daily and conventionally-dosed 5-ASA, and 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening UC. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent (118/411) of SASP participants experienced an AE compared to 15% (72/498) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; 909 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo, and moderate-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is not more effective than SASP. Considering relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. High-certainty evidence suggests 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious as conventionally-dosed 5-ASA. There may be little or no difference in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/administração & dosagem , Colite Ulcerativa/tratamento farmacológico , Mesalamina/administração & dosagem , Sulfassalazina/administração & dosagem , Administração Oral , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Viés , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Quimioterapia de Indução/métodos , Mesalamina/efeitos adversos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Indução de Remissão , Sulfassalazina/efeitos adversos , Falha de Tratamento
19.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237061, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32790718

RESUMO

Stepped-care (SC) models for anxiety disorders are implemented on a large scale and are assumed to be as effective for the greater majority of patients as more intensive treatment schemes. To compare the outcomes of SC and international guideline-based treatment (Treatment as Usual: TAU) for panic disorder, a total of 128 patients were randomized to either SC or TAU (ratio 2: 1, respectively) using a computer generated algorithm. They were treated in four mental health care centres in the Netherlands after therapists had been trained in SC by a senior expert therapist. SC comprised 10-week guided self-help (pen-and-paper version) followed, if indicated, by 13-week manualized face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), with medication- if prescribed- kept constant. TAU consisted of 23-week regular face-to-face CBT (RCBT) with medication -when prescribed- also kept constant. The means of the attended sessions in the SC condition was 5.9 (SD = 4.8) for ITT and 9.6 (SD = 9.6) for the RCBT condition. The difference in the number of attended sessions between the conditions was significant (t(126) = -3.87, p < .001). Remission rates between treatment conditions did not differ significantly (SC: 44.5%; RCBT: 53.3%) and symptom reduction was similar. Stepping up SC treatment to face-to-face CBT showed a minimal additional effect. Importantly, drop-out rates differed significantly for the two conditions (SC: 48.2%; RCBT: 26.7%). SC was effective in the treatment of panic disorder in terms of symptom reduction and remission rate, but dropout rates were twice as high as those seen in RCBT, with the second phase of SC not substantially improving treatment response. However, SC required significantly less therapist contact time compared to RCBT, and more research is needed to explore predictors of success for guided self-help interventions to allow treatment intensity to be tailored to patients' needs and preferences.


Assuntos
Terapia Cognitivo-Comportamental/métodos , Transtorno de Pânico/terapia , Autocuidado/métodos , Adulto , Agorafobia/complicações , Agorafobia/tratamento farmacológico , Agorafobia/terapia , Ansiolíticos/uso terapêutico , Terapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Transtorno de Pânico/complicações , Transtorno de Pânico/tratamento farmacológico , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
20.
Rev Bras Epidemiol ; 23: e200079, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32696931

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with the outcomes of recovery and abandonment in the incarcerated population with tuberculosis. METHODS: A quantitative and observational analytical study was performed with data from the Notification Disease Information System (Sinan), tuberculosis data from the incarcerated population in the state of Paraiba from 2007 to 2016; Notifications of individuals over the age of 18, reported as "new cases" and the outcome, "recovery" or "abandonment" status were included. Those people who until December 2016 had no outcome information were excluded. Analyses were performed using bivariate and multivariate statistics from the Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 614 notifications, most were male (93.8%). In the bivariate analysis, there was a statistically relevant association of outcomes with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (p = 0.044), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) serology (p = 0.048) and lack of completion of follow-up bacilloscopy (p = 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate analysis, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (RR = 1.998; 95%CI 1.078 - 3.704; p = 0.028) and lack of completion of follow-up bacilloscopy (RR = 5.251; 95%CI 2.158 - 12.583; p <0.001*) remained significantly associated with the dropout outcome. CONCLUSION: Recovery and abandonment outcomes were mainly associated with whether the follow-up bacilloscopy was performed or not and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome.


Assuntos
Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Prisioneiros/estatística & dados numéricos , Tuberculose/terapia , Síndrome de Imunodeficiência Adquirida/epidemiologia , Adulto , Técnicas Bacteriológicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Brasil/epidemiologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...