Search

ObjectivesTo determine whether the generic and branded warfarins used as anticoagulants in Brazil are therapeutic equivalents based on their international normalized ratio (INR) results.MethodsThis crossover randomized controlled trial had four periods. We used the branded Marevan and two generic versions of warfarin sodium tablets, manufactured by União Química and Teuto laboratories, all purchased from retail drugstores. Eligible participants were outpatients from an anticoagulation clinic at a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. They had atrial fibrillation or flutter and had been using warfarin for at least 2 months with an INR therapeutic range of 2.0-3.0. Randomization was by numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Healthcare personnel and outcome assessors were blinded to treatments, but patients were not. The primary outcome was the variability in the INR (ΔINR) and secondary outcomes included mean INR. We accepted formulations as equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the comparison of ΔINR between branded and generic formulations was within the limit of ±0.49.ResultsOne hundred patients were recruited and randomized to six sequences of treatment (four sequences with n = 17 and two sequences with n = 16). União Química generic warfarin had equivalent variability in the INR to Marevan (ΔINR +0.09 [95% CI -0.29 to +0.46], n = 84). Comparison between Teuto generic warfarin and Marevan was inconclusive (ΔINR +0.29 [95% CI -0.09 to +0.68], n = 84).ConclusionsMarevan and União Química warfarin had equivalent therapeutic effectiveness and both could be confidently used for anticoagulation. The comparison between Marevan and TW was inconclusive and does not warrant a statement of equivalence. Our methods are especially important for comparing generic and branded drugs that raise concerns and may be subject of future investigations by regulatory agents.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017197.

BackgroundThere is ample evidence that gestational diabetes mellitus has a direct influence on urinary incontinence and pelvic floor muscles. There are no standardized pelvic floor muscle exercise programs in the literature for the physiotherapy and differ in the type of exercise, intensity, type and duration of application, and the frequency and duration of treatment sessions. The aim of this systematic review will be to investigate that Pelvic Floor Muscle Training can prevent and/or decrease the pregnancy specific urinary incontinence in women with gestational diabetes mellitus or gestational hyperglycemia.MethodsWe will perform a systematic review according to the Cochrane methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials. An overall search strategy will be developed and adapted for Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases, with the date of consultation until June 2020. The MeSH terms used will be "Pregnancy", "Hyperglycemia", "Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2", "Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1", "Pregnancy in Diabetics", "Diabetes, Gestational", "Urinary Incontinence", "Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength". Primary outcomes: improvement or cure of pregnancy specific urinary incontinence (which can be assessed by questionnaires, and tools such as tampon test, voiding diary, urodynamic study). Secondary outcomes: improvement of pelvic floor muscle strength (pelvic floor functional assessment, perineometer, electromyography, functional ultrasonography), improved quality of life (questionnaires), presence or absence of postpartum Urinary Incontinence and adverse effects. Quality assessment by Cochrane instrument. Metanalysis if plausible, will be performed by the software Review Manager 5.3.DiscussionThe present study will be the first to analyze the effectiveness of pelvic floor exercises in pregnant women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus or Hyperglycemia, who suffer from pregnancy specific urinary incontinence. Randomized Controlled Trials design will be chosen because they present the highest level of evidence. It is expected to obtain robust and conclusive evidence to support clinical practice, in addition to promoting studies on the theme and contributing to new studies.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017065281.

BackgroundRelapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMM) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory and immune-mediated disease that affects the central nervous system and is characterized by episodes of neurological dysfunction followed by a period of remission. The pharmacological strategy aims to delay the progression of the disease and prevent relapse. Interferon beta and glatiramer are commonly used in the Brazilian public health system and are available to patients who meet the guideline criteria. The scenario of multiple treatments available and in development brings the need for discussion and evaluation of the technologies already available before the incorporation of new drugs. This study analyses the effectiveness of first-line treatment of RRMS measured by real-world evidence data, from the Brazilian National Health System (SUS).Methods and findingsWe conducted a non-concurrent national cohort between 2000 and 2015. The study population consisted of 22,722 patients with RRMS using one of the following first-line drugs of interest: glatiramer or one of three presentations of interferon beta. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the time to treatment failure. A univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate factors associated with treatment failure. In addition, patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) in six groups of comparative first-line treatments to evaluate the effectiveness among them. The analysis indicated a higher risk of treatment failure in female patients (HR = 1.08; P = 0,01), those with comorbidities at baseline (HR = 1.20; PConclusionsThis retrospective cohort suggests that glatiramer is associated with greater effectiveness compared to the three presentations of interferon beta. When evaluating beta interferons, the results suggest that the intramuscular presentation is not effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a disease that causes reduced visual acuity and blindness. The new treatment options for AMD are not provided by the Brazilian public health system.To conduct a budget impact analysis of three scenarios for the introduction of AMD treatments: all the medications (verteporfin, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab-the reference scenario), ranibizumab alone, and bevacizumab alone.The basic assumption was that the Brazilian public health system would treat the entire target population with AMD aged > 70 years between 2008 and 2011. The size of the population of interest was estimated from official population projections and the prevalence of the disease was obtained from a systematic review. Medication prices were estimated by weighting their market values with correction factors to take account of the public procurement policy. The possibility of aliquoting bevacizumab was also considered. A panel of experts was consulted to estimate the market share of the different medications for the reference scenario. The incremental costs of the ranibizumab-alone and bevacizumab-alone scenarios compared to the reference scenario were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were run to check the robustness of the model.In four years, the Brazilian public health system would have treated 1,136,349 individuals with AMD. The annual costs of treating one patient would have been US$476.65 for bevacizumab, US$11,469.39 for ranibizumab, and US$4,376.28 for verteporfin. The incremental cost of the ranibizumab-alone scenario would have been US$1,878,318,056.00 in four years, while the incremental cost for the bevacizumab-alone scenario would have been a reduction of US$4,978,326,359.00 (i.e., a cost saving) in the same period. The bevacizumab-alone option was found to represent a cost saving across sensitivity analyses.The introduction of bevacizumab for the treatment of AMD is recommended for the Brazilian Public Health System.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.