No abstract

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and short-and long-term tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD), as an adjunct treatment, in children and adults with Dravet syndrome (SD), Lennox-Gataut syndrome (LGS), or tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), with inadequate control of seizures. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted through a search for scientific evidence in the Mediline/PubMed, Central Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials. gov databases until April 2022. Selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that presented the outcomes: reduction in the frequency of seizures and total seizures (all types), number of patients with a response greater than or equal to 50%, change in caregiver global impression of change (CGIC) (improvement ≥1 category on the initial scale), adverse events (AEs), and tolerability to treatment. This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: Notably, six RCTs were included, with a total of 1,034 patients with SD, LGS, and TSC, of which 3 were open-label extension RCTs. The meta-analysis of the studies showed that the use of CBD as compared with placebo, in patients with convulsive seizures refractory to the use of medications, reduces the frequency of seizures by 33%; increases the number of patients with a reduction ≥50% in the frequency of seizures by 20%; increases the number of patients with absence of seizures by 3%; improves the clinical impression evaluated by the caregiver or patient (S/CGIC) in 21%; increases total AEs by 12%; increases serious AE by 16%; increases the risk of treatment abandonment by 12%; and increases the number of patients with transaminase elevation (≥3 times the referral) by 15%. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review, with meta-analysis, supports the use of CBD in the treatment of patients with seizures, originated in DS, LGS, and TSC, who are resistant to the common medications, presenting satisfactory benefits in reducing seizures and tolerable toxicity.

Objective: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. Results: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = -0.01 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). Conclusions: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient. Paz-Ares L, et al. 2018 Keynote-407 278/194 280/191 Gandhi L, et al. 2018 Keynote-189 405/272 202/133 Langer CJ, et al. 2016 Keynote-021 59/23 62/16reduction of death, in a 12-month follow-up, of 8% (95% CI -13% to -4%); favorable to the treatment with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy; [I 2 =0%; NNT=12 (95% CI 7 to 25)] - (Figure 4). FIGURE 4. COMPARISON FOREST PLOT: PEMBROLIZUMAB + CHEMOTHERAPY VERSUS CHEMOTHERAPY, OUTCOME: MORTALITY AT 12 MONTHS. CHEMOTHERAPY CHEMOTHERAPY CHEMOTHERAPY CHEMO CHEMO CHEMOThese three RCTs analyzed adverse events of any cause, degree ≥3 in the population treated, for comparison between pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (Table 6).