RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment (HTA) plays a vital role in healthcare decision-making globally, necessitating the identification of key factors impacting evaluation outcomes due to the significant workload faced by HTA agencies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to predict the approval status of evaluations conducted by the Brazilian Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC) using natural language processing (NLP). METHODS: Data encompassing CONITEC's official report summaries from 2012 to 2022. Textual data was tokenized for NLP analysis. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator, logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, neural network, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), were evaluated for accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) score, precision, and recall. Cluster analysis using the k-modes algorithm categorized entries into two clusters (approved, rejected). RESULTS: The neural network model exhibited the highest accuracy metrics (precision at 0.815, accuracy at 0.769, ROC AUC at 0.871, and recall at 0.746), followed by XGBoost model. The lexical analysis uncovered linguistic markers, like references to international HTA agencies' experiences and government as demandant, potentially influencing CONITEC's decisions. Cluster and XGBoost analyses emphasized that approved evaluations mainly concerned drug assessments, often government-initiated, while non-approved ones frequently evaluated drugs, with the industry as the requester. CONCLUSIONS: NLP model can predict health technology incorporation outcomes, opening avenues for future research using HTA reports from other agencies. This model has the potential to enhance HTA system efficiency by offering initial insights and decision-making criteria, thereby benefiting healthcare experts.
Assuntos
Processamento de Linguagem Natural , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Brasil , AlgoritmosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a globally prevalent endocrinological disorder and has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, including a higher rate of gestational diabetes and miscarriage. Metformin is among the drugs investigated to improve the prognosis of pregnant women with PCOS. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews examining the effects of metformin versus placebo or no intervention throughout pregnancy among pregnant women with a preconception PCOS diagnosis to reduce the incidence of miscarriage and gestational diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform an overview of systematic reviews by searching Embase, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trip Database, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 17 August 2023. Language, publication status and year indexed or published filters will not be applied. Two reviewers will independently screen and select papers, assess their quality, evaluate their risk of bias and collect the data. The included reviews will be summarised narratively. The quality and risk of bias of the systematic review and meta-analysis studies included will be assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Second Version) and ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews), respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This overview of reviews will analyse data from systematic reviews on the use of metformin for prepregnancy diagnosis of PCOS to reduce adverse outcomes. As there will be no primary data collection, a formal ethical analysis is unnecessary. The study outcomes will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023441488.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , Diabetes Gestacional , Hipoglicemiantes , Metformina , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Humanos , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/tratamento farmacológico , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/complicações , Feminino , Gravidez , Diabetes Gestacional/tratamento farmacológico , Aborto Espontâneo/prevenção & controle , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Projetos de PesquisaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to determine the costs and benefits of non-invasive liver tests vs liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver diseases. INTRODUCTION: Hepatic diseases can lead to liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the past, liver biopsy was the only option for diagnosing fibrosis degree. Liver biopsy is an invasive procedure that depends on the sample size to be able to deliver an accurate diagnosis. In recent years, non-invasive liver tests have been increasingly used to estimate liver fibrosis degree; however, there is a lack of economic assessments of technology implementation outcomes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include partial (cost studies) and complete economic evaluation studies on hepatitis B, hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that compare non-invasive liver tests with liver biopsies. Studies published in English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, or Portuguese will be included. No date limits will be applied to the search. METHODS: This review will identify published and unpublished studies. Published studies will be identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and LILACS. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature will include sources from health technology assessment agencies, clinical practice guidelines, regulatory approvals, advisories and warnings, and clinical trial registries, as well as Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess studies, and extract and critically appraise the data. Data extracted from the included studies will be analyzed and summarized to address the review objective using narrative text, and the JBI dominance ranking matrix. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023404278.
Assuntos
Cirrose Hepática , Hepatopatias Alcoólicas , Humanos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Cirrose Hepática/diagnóstico , Cirrose Hepática/patologia , Literatura de Revisão como AssuntoRESUMO
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian health technology assessment processes based on public reports from the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC). METHODS: This descriptive study analyzed CONITEC's official reports on Brazil available on its website between 2018 and 2021 that aimed to propose recommendations for technologies to be incorporated into its public healthcare system. We used descriptive statistics covering the number of technologies and number of reports about drugs per year, objective, type of technology, demanding sector, and outcome before 2018 to 2019 and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Furthermore, we used logistic regression to explore any association between the final decision labeled as "incorporated" and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 278 reports were analyzed. Approximately 85% (136 of 278), 79% (220 of 278), and 45% of the reports (125 of 278) were about drugs, for incorporation, and requested by the government, respectively. Moreover, 74 of 130 (57%) and 56 of 148 decisions (38%) were "incorporated" before and during the pandemic, respectively. No significant association was noted between incorporated decisions and the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic for all technologies (odds ratio 1.43; 95% CI 0.84-2.46; P = .192) and for drugs (odds ratio 1.43; 95% confidence interval 0.81-2.53; P = .223) while adjusting for the type of technology and demandant. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought many challenges, but it does not seem to have had a significant impact on the health technology assessment approval decisions of CONITEC in Brazil.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Humanos , Brasil/epidemiologia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Tomada de Decisões , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Tecnologia BiomédicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52-0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53-0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21-0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36-1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01-0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital. FUNDING: FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Fluvoxamina/uso terapêutico , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Brasil , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Fluvoxamina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2 , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/efeitos adversos , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. METHODS: The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo. FINDINGS: The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88-1.11) or other secondary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used a random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto's one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1%. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: One hundred and six RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, 33 trials, 15,942 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, there was a moderate certainty of evidence that CQ/HCQ increases the incidence of cardiac complications (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10-2.38, 16 trials, 9908 participants). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: - 0.4-6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: CQ and HCQ probably do not increase SAEs, with low frequency of these adverse events on malarial and non-malarial conditions. However, they may increase cardiac complications especially in patients with COVID-19. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy was observed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020177818.
Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Hidroxicloroquina , Cloroquina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of treatment response in heart failure. We assessed temporal trends in and factors associated with inclusion of PROs in heart failure randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods and Results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and July 2020 in journals with an impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with PRO inclusion. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. Of 417 RCTs included, PROs were reported in 226 (54.2%; 95% CI, 49.3%-59.1%), with increased reporting between 2000 and 2020 (P<0.001). The odds of PRO inclusion were greater in RCTs that were published in recent years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per year, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P<0.001), multicenter (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03-3.46; P=0.040), medium-sized (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.40; P=0.008), coordinated in Central and South America (aOR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.14-30.97; P=0.035), and tested health service (aOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49-6.55; P=0.003), device/surgical (aOR, 6.66; 95% CI, 3.15-14.05; P<0.001), or exercise (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.81-12.00; P=0.001) interventions. RCTs reported a median of 4 (interquartile interval , 3-6) of a possible of 11 CONSORT PRO items. Conclusions Just over half of all heart failure RCTs published in high impact factor journals between 2000 and 2020 included PROs, with increased inclusion of PROs over time. Trials that were large, tested pharmaceutical interventions, and coordinated in North America / Europe had lower adjusted odds of reporting PROs relative to other trials. The quality of PRO reporting was modest.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Europa (Continente) , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , América do SulRESUMO
Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Results: Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.