RESUMO

Resumen La calidad de vida relacionada con la salud se ha convertido en la actualidad en uno de los desenlaces que se proponen para evaluar la efectividad de intervenciones terapéuticas, sobre todo en condiciones que no tienen cura médica y en las cuales se espera que las intervenciones en salud impacten la forma en la que viven las personas. En el caso de las personas con discapacidad intelectual hay controversia no sólo por la evaluación de la calidad de vida como desenlace, sino también por las consideraciones éticas y metodológicas que implica su uso. Este ensayo aborda los temas éticos y metodológicos de la inclusión de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud como desenlace clínico en personas con discapacidad intelectual. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2019).

Abstract Health-related quality of life is one of the outcomes proposed today for assessing the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, especially in conditions with no medical cure and in which it is expected that the healthcare interventions will have an impact on the way people live. In the case of people with intellectual disability, there is controversy not only about the assessment of quality of life as an outcome, but also over the ethical and methodological considerations involved in its use. This paper addresses the ethical and methodological issues of including health-related quality of life as a clinical outcome in people with intellectual disability. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2019).

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: A living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases. METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DISEÑO: Revisión sistemática viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Colombia es, entre los países en Latinoamérica, el de mayor trayectoria en el esfuerzo por introducir la medicina basada en la evidencia en el cuidado de los pacientes y seguido a ello, soportar las decisiones políticas en salud en la evidencia proveniente de la investigación. Son varias las universidades que han contribuido a este proceso en el país; desde la creación del primer programa de maestría en epidemiología clínica en abril de 1997, en la Facultad de Medicina de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, al que le sucedieron el programa de maestría en Epidemiología Clínica interfacultades de la Universidad Nacional aprobado en el año 2004 y el programa de epidemiología clínica, adscrito a la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Antioquia que inició en noviembre del año 2005, hasta la actualidad, en la que se ofrecen más de seis programas de especialización y de maestría en epidemiología clínica en diferentes universidades del país.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJETIVO Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DIDEÑO Revisión Sistemática Viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad.

OBJECTIVE This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: a living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases.METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides ­ as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs ­ versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single-inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are commonly used for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than administering the individual components. OBJECTIVES: To assess relative effects of the following treatments on markers of exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life and lung function in patients with COPD.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropium.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting three months or longer conducted to compare ICS and LABA combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium versus tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trials for inclusion, then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected trial information on adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropiumWe included six studies (1902 participants) with low risk of bias that compared tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist combination therapy versus tiotropium alone. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments (odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 5.91; two studies; 961 participants), a reduction in all-cause hospitalisations with the use of combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92; two studies; 961 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19.7, 95% CI 10.75 to 123.41). The effect on exacerbations was heterogeneous among trials and was not meta-analysed. Health-related quality of life measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a statistically significant improvement in total scores with use of tiotropium + LABA/ICS compared with tiotropium alone (mean difference (MD) -3.46, 95% CI -5.05 to -1.87; four studies; 1446 participants). Lung function was significantly different in the combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) group, although average benefit with this therapy was small. None of the included studies included exercise tolerance as an outcome.A pooled estimate of these studies did not show a statistically significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; four studies; 1363 participants), serious adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30; four studies; 1758 participants) and pneumonia (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.82; four studies; 1758 participants). Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICSOne of the six studies (60 participants) also compared combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS therapy alone. This study was affected by lack of power; therefore results did not allow us to draw conclusions for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we found new moderate-quality evidence that combined tiotropium + LABA/ICS therapy compared with tiotropium plus placebo decreases hospital admission. Low-quality evidence suggests an improvement in disease-specific quality of life with combined therapy. However, evidence is insufficient to support the benefit of tiotropium + LABA/ICS for mortality and exacerbations (moderate- and low-quality evidence, respectively). Of note, not all participants enrolled in the included studies would be candidates for triple therapy according to current international guidance.Compared with the use of tiotropium plus placebo, tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy does not increase undesirable effects such as adverse events or serious non-fatal adverse events.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease (CLD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants despite increased use of antenatal steroids and surfactant therapy. Ventilator injury and oxygen toxicity are thought to be important factors in the pathogenesis of chronic pulmonary disease. Evidence from animal studies and from adult human studies indicates that high-frequency jet ventilation may reduce the severity of lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. OBJECTIVES: To compare use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction.Subgroup analyses include the following.• Trials with and without surfactant replacement therapy.• Trials with and without strategies to maintain lung volume.• Trials with infants of different gestational ages and birth weights (specific subgroups to include < 28 weeks' gestation and < 1000 grams).• Trials with and without adequate humidification of inspired gases. SEARCH METHODS: The original search included MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2005, Issue 3) and EMBASE (1988 to August 2005). We also obtained information from experts in the field and checked cross-references. We updated the electronic search in June 2013 and again in June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in this systematic review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks' gestation or with birth weight less than 2000 grams in respiratory distress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including independent trial assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Study authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis.The overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants.Studies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCCIÓN: La fibrosis pulmonar idiopática es definida como una forma de neumonía intersticial crónica, progresiva, de causa desconocida, limitada a los pulmones, la cual se presenta principalmente en adultos mayores de 65 años. El diagnóstico de la enfermedad incluye la presencia de un patrón radiológico compatible con neumonía intersticial o hallazgos histopatológicos compatibles con neumonía intersticial usual y la exclusión de: enfermedades ocupacionales, toxicidad por drogas o enfermedades del colágeno que puedan producir enfermedad intersticial. La determinación de los volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía permite identificar la presencia de trastornos restrictivos y la gravedad de estos en los estados patológicos del pulmón. OBJETIVO: Determinar la validez de la medición de los volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía como apoyo del proceso diagnóstico de la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática y como medida del seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad. MÉTODOS: Dos estudios fueron incluidos, estos evaluaban pacientes con fibrosis pulmonar idiopática en los que se realizaron volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía y se correlacionaron los datos de CPT con la tasa de sobrevida, la progresión de la enfermedad y las exacerbaciones. Se encontró que la media de sobrevida de estos pacientes es de 36 meses proximadamente y se asocia a bajos niveles de capacidad vital forzada y capacidad pulmonar total entre otros. Adicionalmente que pacientes con una reducción combinada de CPT y CV por debajo de los valores predichos presentan un deterioro restrictivo de la función pulmonar y un reducción de la sobrevida. CONCLUSIONES: La medición de los volúmenes pulmonares es un método complementario a la espirometría para determinar las capacidades y volúmenes pulmonares que ayudan a definir la gravedad de las alteraciones obstructivas, restrictivas o ambas, que está comprometiendo al paciente. La evidencia existente no soporta su efectividad en la confirmación diagnóstica de la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática, para la cual existen otras pruebas de mayor utilidad diagnóstica y tampoco soporta su como método de seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad.(AU)

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Surfactant therapy is effective in improving the outcome of very preterm infants. Trials have studied a wide variety of surfactant preparations used either to prevent or treat respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In animal models, prophylactic surfactant leads to more homogeneous distribution and less evidence of lung damage. However, administration requires intubation and treatment of infants who will not go on to develop RDS. This is of particular concern with the advent of improved approaches to providing continuous distending pressure, particularly in the form of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of prophylactic surfactant administration to surfactant treatment of established RDS in very preterm infants at risk of RDS. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinical trials.gov register in December 13, 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of prophylactic surfactant administration to surfactant treatment of established RDS in preterm infants at risk of RDS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding clinical outcomes were extracted from the reports of the clinical trials by the reviewers. Data analysis was done in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified that met inclusion criteria [nine without routine application of continuous positive air way pressure (CPAP) in the selective treatment group; two with routine application of CPAP in the selective treatment group]The meta-analysis of studies conducted prior to the routine application of CPAP demonstrated a decrease in the risk of air leak and neonatal mortality associated with prophylactic administration of surfactant. However, the analyses of studies that allowed for routine stabilization on CPAP demonstrated a decrease in the risk of chronic lung disease or death in infants stabilized on CPAP. When all studies were evaluated together, the benefits of prophylactic surfactant could no longer be demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the early trials of prophylactic surfactant administration to infants judged to be at risk of developing RDS compared to selective use of surfactant in infants with established RDS demonstrated a decreased risk of air leak and mortality, recent large trials that reflect current practice (including greater utilization of maternal steroids and routine post delivery stabilization on CPAP) do not support these differences and demonstrate less risk of chronic lung disease or death when using early stabilization on CPAP with selective surfactant administration to infants requiring intubation.

Assuntos