RESUMO

Objective: We systematically assessed the efficacy of tunnel technique (TUN) vs. coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the management of multiple gingival recession defects in adults. Methods: Five databases were searched until September 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TUN vs. CAF; grafts of interest were acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and connective tissue graft (CTG). Primary outcomes were root coverage (RC) and complete root coverage (CRC). Secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth (PD), and recession coverage (REC). Effect measures were risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with their confidence intervals (95% CI). Inverse variance methods and random-effects model meta-analyses were used. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft were performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. Results: Five RCTs (n = 173) were included, with a follow-up of 6 months for all outcomes. In comparison to CAF, TUN did not significantly reduce CRC (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.002-176.7; p = 0.51) and did not increase RC (MD 0.99%; 95% CI -6.7 to 8.6; p = 0.80). In comparison to CAF, TUN showed no significant reduction of secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses by type of graft showed no differences in comparison to primary analyses for primary and secondary outcomes. Three RCTs had a high risk of bias, and five RCTs had very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. Conclusions: In adults with gingival recessions, TUN had similar primary and secondary outcomes in comparison with CAF. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft did not affect main conclusions. More RCTs with better design are needed to further characterize the effects of TUN vs. CAF in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects.

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of tocilizumab (TCZ), which is an antibody blocking IL-6 receptors, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Five electronic databases and two preprint webpages were searched until March 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) cohorts assessing TCZ effects in hospitalized, COVID-19 adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, clinical improvement, need for mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 7,021) and nine IPTW cohorts (n = 7,796) were included. TCZ significantly reduced all-cause mortality in RCTs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81-0.98, p = 0.03; moderate QoE) and non-significantly in cohorts (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.44-1.02, p = 0.08; very low QoE) vs. control (standard of care [SOC] or placebo). TCZ significantly reduced the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.90, p = 0.001; moderate QoE) and length of stay (MD -1.92 days, 95%CI -3.46 to -0.38, p = 0.01; low QoE) vs. control in RCTs. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement or worsening between treatments. AEs, severe AEs, bleeding and thrombotic events were similar between arms in RCTs, but there was higher neutropenia risk with TCZ (very low QoE). Subgroup analyses by disease severity or risk of bias (RoB) were consistent with main analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate to very low in both RCTs and cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo, TCZ reduced all-cause mortality in all studies and reduced mechanical ventilation and length of stay in RCTs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly impacted. TCZ did not have effect on AEs, except a significant increased neutropenia risk in RCTs. TCZ has a potential role in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09-3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47-1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

RESUMO

Background: Inflammation plays a key role in atherosclerotic plaque destabilization and adverse cardiac remodeling. Recent evidence has shown a promising role of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of colchicine in post-acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Methods: We searched five electronic databases from inception to January 18, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colchicine in post-acute MI patients. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and recurrent MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, levels of follow-up high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and drug-related adverse events. All meta-analyses used inverse-variance random-effects models. Results: Six RCTs involving 6,005 patients were included. Colchicine did not significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.52-1.61; p = 0.64], recurrent MI (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.22; p = 0.28), all-cause mortality (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.85; p = 0.78), stroke (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.07-1.09; p = 0.05), urgent coronary revascularization (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.02-8.89; p = 0.19), or decreased levels of follow-up hs-CRP (mean difference, -1.95 mg/L; 95% CI, -12.88 to 8.98; p = 0.61) compared to the control group. There was no increase in any adverse events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; p = 0.34) or gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.48-12.99; p = 0.20). Subgroup analyses by colchicine dose (0.5 vs. 1 mg/day), time of follow-up (<1 vs. ≥1 year), and treatment duration (≤30 vs. >30 days) showed no changes in the overall findings. Conclusion: In post-acute MI patients, colchicine does not reduce cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, or other cardiovascular outcomes. Also, colchicine did not increase drug-related adverse events.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To systematically evaluate short-term efficacy of UCM versus other interventions in preterm infants. METHODS: Six engines were searched until February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing UCM versus immediate cord clamping (ICC), delayed cord clamping (DCC), or no intervention. Primary outcomes were overall mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA); secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, mean blood pressure (MBP), serum hemoglobin (Hb), and ferritin levels. Random-effects meta-analyses were used. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (n = 1708) were included. In comparison to ICC, UCM did not decrease mortality (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.1), IVH (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0), or PDA (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5). However, UCM reduced need of blood transfusion (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9) and increased MBP (MD 2.5 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.5-4.5), Hb (MD 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.8-1.6), and ferritin (MD 151.4 ng/dL, 95% CI 59.5-243.3). In comparison to DCC, UCM did not reduce mortality, IVH, PDA, or need of blood transfusion but increased MBP (MD 3.7, 95% CI 0.6-6.9) and Hb (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.2-0.8). Only two RCTs had high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: UCM did not decrease short-term clinical outcomes in comparison to ICC or DCC in preterm infants. Intermediate outcomes improved significantly with UCM. IMPACT: In 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), umbilical cord milking (UCM) did not reduce mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage, or patent ductus arteriosus compared to immediate (ICC) or delayed cord clamping (DCC). UCM improved mean blood pressure and hemoglobin levels compared to ICC or DCC. In comparison to ICC, UCM reduced the need for blood transfusion. We updated searches until February 2020, stratified by type of control, and performed subgroup analyses. There was low quality of evidence about clinical efficacy of UCM. Most of RCTs had low risk of bias. UCM cannot be recommended as standard of care for preterm infants.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

Assuntos

RESUMO

RESUMEN Objetivo: Desarrollar un modelo de predicción de riesgo para infección posoperatoria mayor (IPM) a cirugía cardiaca pediátrica y validar el de la Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Materiales y métodos: Se analizó una cohorte retrospectiva de 1025 niños sometidos a cirugía cardiaca con circulación extracorpórea (CEC) del 2000 al 2010. Se empleó un modelo de regresión logística y se validó el modelo. Resultados: De los 1025 pacientes, 59 (5,8%) tuvieron al menos un episodio de IPM (4,8% sepsis, 1% mediastinitis, 0% endocarditis). La mortalidad hospitalaria (63% vs. 13%; p<0,001), al igual que la duración de la ventilación posoperatoria (301,6 vs. 34,3 horas; p<0,001) y la estancia en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (20,9 vs. 5,1 días; p <0,001) fueron mayores en los pacientes con IPM. Los factores predictores fueron: edad, sexo, peso, cardiopatía cianótica, RACHS-1 3-4, clase funcional IV modificada por Ross, estancia hospitalaria previa y antecedente de ventilación mecánica. El modelo tuvo un c-estadístico de 0,80 (intervalo de confianza [IC] al 95%: 0,74-0,86) y es clínicamente útil. El modelo de la STS mostró un c-estadístico de 0,78 (IC 95%: 0,71-0,84) y Hosmer-Lemeshow de 18,2 (p = 0,020). Se realizó una comparación entre ambos modelos empleando una prueba exacta de Fisher. Conclusión: Se desarrolló un modelo para identificar preoperatoriamente a niños con alto riesgo de infección grave después de una cirugía cardiaca con CEC con buen desempeño y calibración. Asimismo, se validó el modelo de la STS con moderada discriminación.

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for major postoperative infection (MPI) after pediatric heart surgery and to validate the model of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Materials and methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,025 children who underwent heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) from 2000 to 2010. We used a logistic regression model, which was validated. Results: Of the 1,025 patients, 59 (5.8%) had at least one episode of MPI (4.8% had sepsis, 1% had mediastinitis, 0% had endocarditis). Hospital mortality (63% vs. 13%; p < 0.001), as well as duration of postoperative ventilation (301.6 vs. 34.3 hours; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (20.9 vs. 5.1 days; p < 0.001) were higher in patients with MPI. The predictive factors found were age, sex, weight, cyanotic heart disease, RACHS-1 3-4, Ross-modified functional class IV, previous hospital stay, and previous history of mechanical ventilation. The proposed model had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.86) and was considered as clinically useful. The STS model showed a c-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84) and a Hosmer-Lemeshow of 18.2 (P = 0.020). A comparison between the two models was made using an accurate Fisher test. Conclusion: A model with good performance and calibration was developed to preoperatively identify children at high risk for severe infection after cardiac surgery with CPB. The STS model was also validated and was found to have a moderate discrimination performance.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for major postoperative infection (MPI) after pediatric heart surgery and to validate the model of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,025 children who underwent heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) from 2000 to 2010. We used a logistic regression model, which was validated. RESULTS: Of the 1,025 patients, 59 (5.8%) had at least one episode of MPI (4.8% had sepsis, 1% had mediastinitis, 0% had endocarditis). Hospital mortality (63% vs. 13%; p < 0.001), as well as duration of postoperative ventilation (301.6 vs. 34.3 hours; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (20.9 vs. 5.1 days; p < 0.001) were higher in patients with MPI. The predictive factors found were age, sex, weight, cyanotic heart disease, RACHS-1 3-4, Ross-modified functional class IV, previous hospital stay, and previous history of mechanical ventilation. The proposed model had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.86) and was considered as clinically useful. The STS model showed a c-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84) and a Hosmer-Lemeshow of 18.2 (P = 0.020). A comparison between the two models was made using an accurate Fisher test. CONCLUSION: A model with good performance and calibration was developed to preoperatively identify children at high risk for severe infection after cardiac surgery with CPB. The STS model was also validated and was found to have a moderate discrimination performance.

OBJETIVO: Desarrollar un modelo de predicción de riesgo para infección posoperatoria mayor (IPM) a cirugía cardiaca pediátrica y validar el de la Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se analizó una cohorte retrospectiva de 1025 niños sometidos a cirugía cardiaca con circulación extracorpórea (CEC) del 2000 al 2010. Se empleó un modelo de regresión logística y se validó el modelo. RESULTADOS: De los 1025 pacientes, 59 (5,8%) tuvieron al menos un episodio de IPM (4,8% sepsis, 1% mediastinitis, 0% endocarditis). La mortalidad hospitalaria (63% vs. 13%; p < 0,001), al igual que la duración de la ventilación posoperatoria (301,6 vs. 34,3 horas; p < 0,001) y la estancia en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (20,9 vs. 5,1 días; p < 0,001) fueron mayores en los pacientes con IPM. Los factores predictores fueron: edad, sexo, peso, cardiopatía cianótica, RACHS-1 3-4, clase funcional IV modificada por Ross, estancia hospitalaria previa y antecedente de ventilación mecánica. El modelo tuvo un c-estadístico de 0,80 (intervalo de confianza [IC] al 95%: 0,74-0,86) y es clínicamente útil. El modelo de la STS mostró un c-estadístico de 0,78 (IC 95%: 0,71-0,84) y Hosmer-Lemeshow de 18,2 (p = 0,020). Se realizó una comparación entre ambos modelos empleando una prueba exacta de Fisher. CONCLUSIÓN: Se desarrolló un modelo para identificar preoperatoriamente a niños con alto riesgo de infección grave después de una cirugía cardiaca con CEC con buen desempeño y calibración. Asimismo, se validó el modelo de la STS con moderada discriminación.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effects of bone anabolic therapies (BATs) - specifically, drug therapy with teriparatide, abaloparatide or romosozumab - on fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone metabolites in postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: Six computerized engines were searched through to November 2018. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of BATs on postmenopausal osteoporosis and with at least 6 months of follow-up. Controls were placebo, no treatment, or bisphosphonates. Primary outcomes were vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Secondary outcomes were: BMD determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry at total hip, lumbar spine, and femoral neck; N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP); C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX); and severe adverse events (SAE). We followed the PRISMA guidelines for reporting, and used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Frequentist network meta-analyses were performed per outcome. Effects for dichotomous and continuous outcomes were expressed as relative risks and mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals. We used p-scores to rank best treatments per outcome. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (n = 18,940) were evaluated. Mean ages ranged between 61 and 74 years, and follow-up times between 6 and 30 months. Four RCTs (n = 971) excluded patients with previous fractures. In contrast to placebo/no treatment, all BATs significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fractures, but no intervention significantly reduced the risk of non-vertebral fractures; abaloparatide ranked better than other interventions for both fracture types (p-scores: 0.95, and 0.89, respectively). All BATs significantly increased BMD at all locations in comparison with placebo/no treatment; romosozumab consistently ranked better than other interventions at all BMD locations (p-scores >0.86). Teriparatide ranked better than other interventions for increasing PINP. No differences in SAE were observed among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Abaloparatide, romosozumab, and teriparatide are the best treatments, respectively, to reduce vertebral/non-vertebral fractures, increase BMD, and increase bone formation.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Insulin resistance (IR) has been implicated in carcinogenesis, but there is no consensus regarding its involvement in ovarian cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between IR and ovarian cancer. METHODS: Searches were conducted in five databases for studies evaluating IR markers (levels of serum insulin, C peptide, insulin growth factor [IGF] 1 and IGF-binding proteins [IGFBPs], homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance, and quantitative insulin-sensitivity check index) and ovarian cancer risk. Study selection, data extraction and an assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by three researchers. The associations between IR markers and ovarian cancer were quantified as mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) and their 95% CIs using random-effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen case-control studies satisfied our inclusion criteria (n=8130). There was little information on IR markers with the exception of the IGF system. Ovarian cancer was associated with lower IGF-1 levels (SMD -0.43ng/mL, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.18; p=0.0006), and lower IGFBP-3 levels (SMD -0.11ng/mL, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.00; p=0.04). However, ovarian cancer was associated with higher levels of IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-1 (MD 527.3ng/mL, 95%CI 473.6, 581.0; p<0.00001, and MD 3.47ng/mL, 95%CI 1.42, 5.52; p=0.0009 respectively). Subgroup analyses by menopausal status and age (≤55 vs >55y) for IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 showed the subgroups were similar, although heterogeneity remained high. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that levels of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 are lower in patients with ovarian cancer. In contrast, higher levels of IGBP-2 and IGBP-1 are found in patients with ovarian cancer.

Assuntos