Search

Rationale: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) developed a clinical practice guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults. Controller pharmacotherapies treat tobacco dependence effectively when taken as prescribed, but relapse after pharmacologic discontinuation is common. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of initiating controller for an extended (>12 wk) versus a standard duration (6-12 wk) in tobacco-dependent adults. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard duration of controllers for tobacco-dependent adults. We conducted meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random effects model. Outcomes of interest include point-prevalent abstinence at 1-year follow-up or longer, relapse, adverse events, quality of life, and withdrawal symptoms. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to types of treatment and duration of extended therapy when feasible. We assessed the certainty of the estimate following the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Results: We included 13 randomized controlled trials including 8,695 participants that directly compared extended- (>12 wk) versus standard-duration controller therapy with varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement therapy. Compared with standard-duration controller therapy, extended-duration controller therapy probably increased abstinence at 1-year follow-up, measured as 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.33; moderate certainty). Extended-duration controller therapy probably reduced relapse compared with standard-duration controller therapy, assessed at 12-18 months after initiation of therapy (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29-0.64; moderate certainty). Moderate certainty evidence also suggested that extended-duration controller therapy probably did not increase risk of serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.79-2.36). Conclusions: This systematic review supported the recommendation for extended-duration therapy with controllers. Further studies on optimal extended duration are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Herbal medications are commonly used to manage symptoms associated with osteoarthritis (OA). This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of oral medications used in Brazil for the treatment of OA. Randomized clinical trials involving adults with OA treated by a herbal medicine or a control group were eligible. The primary outcomes measured were pain, physical function, swelling, stiffness and quality of life; and the secondary outcomes were adverse events, activity limitations and treatment satisfaction. Sixteen studies were included (n = 1,741 patients) in the systematic review and nine studies in the meta-analysis, representing 6 of the 13 herbal medicines studied: Boswellia serrata (n = 2), Curcuma longa (n = 3), Harpagophytum procumbens (n = 1), Salix daphnoides (n = 3), Uncaria guianensis (n = 2) and Zingiber officinale (n = 5). B. serrata was more effective than both placebo and valdecoxib for improvement of pain and physical function. No difference was observed for H. procumbens, C. longa and U. guianensis compared with control. Z. officinale showed improvement of pain over placebo. The evidence was insufficient to support the effective and safe use of these herbal medicines, because the quality of evidence of studies was low. This study guides managers of the Brazilian public health system and prescribers in decision-making regarding the use of these herbal medicines for OA. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis affects 1 % of the world's population and is the most common cause of musculoskeletal impairment in the elderly. Herbal medications are commonly used in Brazil to manage symptoms associated with osteoarthritis, and some of them are financed by the Brazilian government; however, the effectiveness of most of these agents is uncertain. The aim was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of 13 oral herbal medications used in Brazil for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Methods: Randomized clinical trials eligible for our systematic review will enroll adults with osteoarthritis treated by a Brazilian herbal medication or a control group (placebo or active control). Using terms to include all forms of osteoarthritis combined with herbal medications, we will search the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Health Star; AMED, the database of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, LILACS; CAB abstracts, Clinical trial.gov, WHO trials registry, and Bank of Brazil Thesis (CAPES), to 31 January 2016, without restrictions concerning language or status of publication. Outcomes of interest include the following: symptom relief (e.g., pain), adverse events (gastrointestinal bleeding, epigastric pain, nausea, and allergic reactions), discontinuation due to adverse events, quality of life, and the satisfaction with the treatment. Dichotomous data will be summarized as risk ratios; continuous data will be given as standard average differences with 95 % confidence intervals. A team of reviewers will assess each citation independently for eligibility and in duplicate it. For eligible studies, the same reviewers will perform data extraction, bias risk assessment, and determination of the overall quality of evidence for each of the outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification system. Discussion: This is the first study that will evaluate the use of herbal medications used in Brazil for the treatment of pain caused by osteoarthritis. The results could guide prescribers in decision-making in clinical practice, to inform the patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis in relation to effective and safe treatment options and to inform the managers of the public health system which of the plants could actually be financed by the Brazilian government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation considering use of anticoagulants must balance stroke reduction against bleeding risk. Knowledge of bleeding risk without the use of anticoagulants may help inform this decision. Purpose: To determine the rate of major bleeding reported in observational studies of atrial fibrillation patients not receiving Vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to October 2011 and examined reference lists of eligible studies and related reviews. Study Selection: All longitudinal cohort studies that included over 100 adult patients with atrial fibrillation not receiving VKA. Data Extraction: Teams of two reviewers independently and in duplicate adjudicated eligibility, assessed risk of bias and abstracted study characteristics and outcomes. Data Synthesis: Twenty-one eligible studies included 96,448 patients. Major bleeding rates varied widely, from 0 to 4.69 events per 100 patient-years. The pooled estimate in 13 studies with 78839 patients was 1.59 with a 99% confidence interval of 1.10 to 2.3 and median 1.42 (interquartile range 0.62–2.70). Pooled estimates for fatal bleeding and non-fatal bleeding from 4 studies that reported these outcomes were, respectively, 0.40 (0.34 to 0.46) and 1.18 (0.30 to 4.56) per 100 patient-years. In 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) the median rate of major bleeding in patients not receiving either anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy was 0.6 (interquartile 0.2 to 0.90), and in 12 RCTs the median rate of major bleeding in patients receiving a single antiplatelet agent was 0.75 (interquartile 0.4 to 1.4). Conclusion: Results suggest that patients with atrial fibrillation not receiving VKA enrolled in observational studies represent a population on average at higher risk of bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: To compare the use of inhalation versus intravenous anaesthesia for adults undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.Design: A systematic review.Setting: A hospital-affiliated university.Measurements: The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (from inception to October 2016). We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence.Results: In total we included 58 studies with a total of 6105 participants. The methodological quality was difficult to assess as it was poorly reported in 35 included studies (three or more domains were rated as unclear risk of bias). Two trials of sevoflurane showed a statistically significant reduction in death within 180 to 365days of surgery (on-pump) (RR 4.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 11.79; p=0.009; I2=not applicable; high quality of evidence). There was also a statistically significant difference favouring sevoflurane compared to propofol on both inotropic (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.90; p<0.00001; I2=0%) and vasoconstrictor support needed (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.22; p=0.03; I2=0%) after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump. Two trials of sevoflurane (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03; p=0.02; I2=0%) and two further trials of desflurane (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.20; p<0.00001; I2=82%) showed a statistically significant difference on cardiac index during and after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump, respectively.Conclusions: There is high quality evidence that sevoflurane reduces death within 180 to 365days of surgery and, inotropic and vasoconstrictor support compared to propofol for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. There is also some evidence showing that the cardiac index is minimally influenced by administration of sevoflurane and desflurane compared to propofol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]