Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an ‘overarching’ treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.
BackgroundMaternal and infant mortality are highly devastating, yet, in many cases, preventable events for a community. The human development of a country is a strong predictor of maternal and infant mortality, reflecting the importance of socioeconomic factors in determinants of health. Previous research has shown that the Human Development Index (HDI) predicts infant mortality rate (IMR) and the maternal mortality ratio (MMR). Inequality has also been shown to be associated with worse health in certain populations. The main purpose of the present study was to determine the correlation and predictive power of the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) as a measure of inequality with the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR), Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR), Early Neonatal Mortality Rate (ENMR), Late Neonatal Mortality Rate (LNMR), and the Post Neonatal Mortality Rate (PNMR).Methods and FindingsData for the present study were downloaded from two sources: infant and maternal mortality data were downloaded from the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Cause of Death Database and the Human Development Index (HDI) and Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) data were downloaded from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated, following logarithmic transformations to the data, to examine the relationship between HDI and IHDI with MMR, IMR, ENMR, LNMR, and PNMR. Steiger’s Z test for the equality of two dependent correlations was utilized in order to determine whether the HDI or IHDI was more strongly associated with the outcome variables. Lastly, we constructed OLS regression models in order to determine the predictive power of the HDI and IHDI in terms of the MMR, IMR, ENMR, LNMR, and PNMR.Maternal and infant mortality were both strongly and negatively correlated with both HDI and IHDI; however, Steiger’s Z test for the equality of two dependent correlations revealed that IHDI was more strongly correlated than HDI with MMR (Z = 4.897, p < 0.001), IMR (Z = 2.524, p = 0.012), ENMR (Z = 2.936, p = 0.003), LNMR (Z = 2.272, p = 0.023), and PNMR (Z = 2.277, p = 0.023). Furthermore, side-by-side OLS regression models revealed that, when IHDI was used as the predictor variable instead of HDI, the R 2 value was 0.053 higher for MMR, 0.025 higher for IMR, 0.038 higher for ENMR, 0.029 higher for LNMR, and 0.026 higher for PNMR.ConclusionsEven when both the HDI and the IHDI correlate with the infant and maternal mortality rates, the IHDI is a better predictor for these two health indicators. Therefore, these results add more evidence that inequality is playing an important role in determining the health status of various populations in the world and more efforts should be put into programs to fight inequality.
Objective To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. Review methods Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. Results 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). Conclusions Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
Thrombolytic therapy might reduce venous thromboembolism–related mortality and morbidity, but it could also increase the risk of major bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep venous thrombosis (DVT). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. Multiple investigators independently screened and collected data. We included 45 studies (4740 participants). Pooled estimates of PE studies indicate probable reduction in mortality with thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94) (moderate certainty) and possible reduction in nonfatal PE recurrence (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.89) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of DVT studies indicate the possible absence of effects on mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.28) (low certainty) and recurrent DVT (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.76) (low certainty), but possible reduction in postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) with thrombolytics (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of the complete body of evidence indicate increases in major bleeding (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46-2.46) (high certainty) and a probable increase in intracranial bleeding (RR, 3.17; 95% CI 1.19-8.41) (moderate certainty) with thrombolytics. Our findings indicate that thrombolytics probably reduce mortality in patients with submassive- or intermediate-risk PE and may reduce PTS in patients with proximal DVT at the expense of a significant increase in major bleeding. Because the balance between benefits and harms is profoundly influenced by the baseline risks of critical outcomes, stakeholders involved in decision making would need to weigh these effects to define which clinical scenarios merit the use of thrombolytics.
BackgroundThe neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been investigated in many autoimmune conditions as a biomarker of inflammation and/or disease activity. The role of NLR in AQP4-IgG-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) is far from clear. In this study, NLR was evaluated in patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD at disease onset and its prognostic impact was subsequently assessed.MethodsIn this multicenter study, we retrospectively included all recent/newly diagnosed treatment-naïve patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD (n=90) from three different countries in Latin America (LATAM): Argentina, Ecuador, and Mexico. NLR was compared between AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD and healthy controls (HC, n = 365). Demographic, clinical, paraclinical (including imaging), and prognostic data at 12 and 24 months were also evaluated. Multivariate regression analysis was used to describe and identify independent associations between the log-transformed NLR and clinical (relapses and EDSS) and imaging (new/enlarging and/or contrast-enhancing MRI lesions) outcomes.ResultsNLR was higher in NMOSD patients during the first attack compared with HC (2.9 ± 1.6 vs 1.8 ± 0.6; p<0.0001). Regardless of immunosuppressant’s initiation at disease onset, NLR remained higher in NMOSD patients at 12 (2.8 ± 1.3; p<0.0001) and 24 (3.1 ± 1.6; p<0.0001) months. No association was found at 12 and 24 months between the log-transformed NLR and the presence of relapses, new/enlarging and/or contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, and/or physical disability.ConclusionsIn this cohort of LATAM patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD, NLR was abnormally high in attacks but also during follow-up. However, a high NLR was not an independent predictor of clinical or imaging outcomes in our models.
This Clinical Practice Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis includes the recommendations elaborated by a panel of experts from the Latin American Psoriasis Society SOLAPSO, who assessed the quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system and the PICO process to guide the literature search. To answer each question, the experts discussed the results of randomized controlled trials, observational studies and metanalysis evaluating the interventions identified (non‐biologics, biologics and phototherapy) in different populations of patients with moderate to severe plaque‐psoriasis, which was summarized in Tables ad‐hoc. The main end‐points considered to assess efficacy were PASI 50, 75, 90 and 100, PGA 0‐1 and significant improvement of health‐related quality of life. Specific adverse events, either severe or leading to treatment interruption, were also evaluated. The 31 recommendations included in this CPG follow the structure proposed by GRADE: direction (for or against) and strength (strong or weak). The goal of this CPG is to improve the management of patients with psoriasis by recommending interventions of proved benefit and providing a reference standard for the treating physician. Adhering to the contents of this CPG does not guarantee therapeutic success. The final decision on the specific treatment is the responsibility of the physician based on the individual circumstances and considering the values, the preferences and the opinions of the patient or caregivers.
We aimed to examine treatment interventions implemented in patients experiencing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) attacks (frequency, types, and response). Methods Retrospective study. Data on patient demographic, clinical and radiological findings, and administered treatments were collected. Remission status (complete [CR], partial [PR], no remission [NR]), based on changes in the EDSS score was evaluated before treatment, during attack, and at 6 months. CR was analyzed with a generalized estimating equations (GEEs) model. Results A total of 131 patients (120 NMOSD and 11 myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-antibody-associated diseases [MOGAD]), experiencing 262 NMOSD-related attacks and receiving 270 treatments were included. High-dose steroids (81.4%) was the most frequent treatment followed by plasmapheresis (15.5%). CR from attacks was observed in 47% (105/223) of all treated patients. During the first attack, we observed CR:71.2%, PR:16.3% and NR:12.5% after the first course of treatment. For second, third, fourth, and fifth attacks, CR was observed in 31.1%, 10.7%, 27.3%, and 33.3%, respectively. Remission rates were higher for optic neuritis vs. myelitis (p < 0.001). Predictor of CR in multivariate GEE analysis was age in both NMOSD (OR = 2.27, p = 0.002) and MOGAD (OR = 1.53, p = 0.03). Conclusions This study suggests individualization of treatment according to age and attack manifestation. The outcome of attacks was generally poor.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.