Nearly one million Brazilians were morbidly obese in 2013. Bariatric surgery is an option for sustained weight loss, and the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) had provided 50,000 such procedures as of 2014. The SUS database does not provide anthropometric and comorbidity data on these patients, so the aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review to assess the profile of SUS patients that underwent bariatric surgery from 1998 to 2014. The MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and Scopus databases were searched, and the methodological quality of the included articles was assessed. Of the 1,591 identified studies, 39 were selected, 95% of which were observational. Patients had a mean age of 41.4 years and mean body mass index of 48.6kg/m2; 21% were males, 61% hypertensive, 22% diabetics, and 31% presented sleep apnea. When compared to international study samples, SUS patients showed similar a anthropometric profile and comorbidities but higher prevalence of hypertension. The studies' low methodological quality suggests caution in interpreting the results.

BackgroundBariatric surgery is an option for sustained weight loss for the morbidly obese patient. In Brazil coexists the Unified Health System (SUS) with universal coverage and from which depend 150 million Brazilians and supplemental health security, predominantly private, with 50 million beneficiaries.AimTo compare access, in-hospital mortality, length of stay and costs for patients undergoing bariatric surgery, assisted in one or another system.MethodsData from DATASUS and IBGE were used for SUS patients' and database from one health plan of southeastern Brazil for the health insurance patients.ResultsBetween 2001 and 2010 there were 24,342 and 4,356 surgeries performed in SUS and in the health insurance company, respectively. The coverage rates for surgeries performed in 2010 were 5.3 and 91/100.000 individuals in SUS and health insurance respectively. The rate of in-hospital mortality in SUS, considering the entire country, was 0.55 %, 0.44 % considering SUS Southeast, and 0.30 % for the health insurance. The costs of surgery in the SUS and in the health insurance trend to equalization over the years.ConclusionDespite differences in access and characteristics that may compromise the outcome of bariatric surgery, patients treated at the Southeast SUS had similar rate of in-hospital mortality compared to the health insurance patients.

The 30-day mortality post-RYGB is similar to the rates found in developed countries and much lower than the rates found for patients assisted by the public health system in Brazil. In addition to age and clinical factors, the results suggest that mortality and longer hospital stay are strong and inversely related to surgeon's experience.

Results indicate that costs and hospital admissions after bariatric surgery increase following this procedure, even when elective interventions are excluded. Healthcare providers and policy makers need to be aware that a decrease in obesity-related diseases following bariatric surgery does not reduce healthcare use and costs.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Morbidly obese individuals are major consumers of healthcare services, with high associated costs. Bariatric surgery is an alternative for improving these individuals' comorbidities.There are no studies comparing costs before and after bariatric surgery in Brazil.The aim here was to analyze results relating to healthcare usage and direct costs among morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Historical cohort study on patients receiving healthcare through a private health plan in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. METHODS: All healthcare services and their associated costs were included in the analysis: hospitalization, hospital stay, elective outpatient consultations, emergency service usage and examinations. The analyses were treated as total when including the whole years before and after surgery, or partial when excluding the three-month periods adjacent to the operation. RESULTS: For 382 obese patients who underwent open bariatric operations, there were 53 hospitalizations one year before and 95 one year after surgery (P = 0.013). Gastrointestinal complications were the main indications for post-procedure hospitalizations. The partial average cost almost doubled after the operation (US$ 391.96 versus US$ 678.31). In subgroup analysis, the costs from patients with gastrointestinal complications were almost four times greater after bariatric surgery. Even in the subgroup without complications, the partial average cost remained significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Although bariatric surgery is the only path towards sustained weight loss for morbidly obese patients, the direct costs over the first year after the procedure are greater. Further studies, with longer follow-up, might elucidate whether long-term reversal of this trend would occur.reSUMO CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Indivíduos obesos mórbidos são grandes consumidores de serviços de saúde, com altos custos associados. A cirurgia bariátrica é uma alternativa para melhorar suas comorbidades. Não existem estudos comparando custos antes e após a cirurgia bariátrica no Brasil. O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar os resultados assistenciais e gastos diretos de pacientes obesos mórbidos submetidos à cirurgia bariátrica. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Coorte histórica de pacientes assistidos por um plano de saúde na cidade de Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos na análise todos os serviços de saúde e seus custos associados: hospitalizações, permanência hospitalar, consultas eletivas e de emergência e exames. A análise foi tratada como total quando incluía todo o ano anterior e posterior à cirurgia, e parcial quando excluía os trimestres adjacentes à cirurgia. RESULTADOS: Para 382 pacientes obesos operados, houve 53 internações um ano antes e 95 um ano após a cirurgia (P = 0,013). As principais indicações para internação pós-procedimento foram complicações relacionadas ao trato gastrointestinal. O custo parcial médio quase dobrou no período pós-operatório (US$ 391,96 versus US$ 678,31). Em análise de s...

OBJECTIVE:The article describes the strategies adopted by the Brazilian Longitudinal Study for Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) for participation and retention of subjects. This is key to ensure internal validity of longitudinal studies, and to identify, investigate, and ascertain outcomes of interest. METHODS:The follow-up strategies include annual telephone contacts with new assessments and interviews every three to four years this approach aims to identify transient outcomes (reversible or not), permanent outcomes as well as complications related to the progression of major diseases -cardiovascular diseases and diabetes -to be studied. RESULTS:Telephone interviews are designed to monitor subjects' health status and to identify potential health-related events such as hospital admissions, medical visits or pre-selected medical procedures. Subjects are also encouraged to report to the ELSA-Brasil team any new health-related events. When a potential event is identified, a thorough investigation is carried out to collect relevant information about that event from medical records. All data are blinded and reviewed and analyzed by a medical expert committee. Incident outcome ascertainment follows well-established international criteria to ensure data comparability and avoid misclassification. In addition to these strategies, the occurrence of health-related events is also investigated through linkage of secondary databases, such as national mortality and hospital admission databases.CONCLUSIONS: Accurate identification of outcomes will allow to estimating their incidence in the study cohort and to investigate the effect of the exposures studied in the ELSA-Brasil at baseline and at its subsequent waves.

BackgroundThe role of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is still controversial despite several previously published meta-analyses. A meta-analysis to evaluate the controversial role of IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stenting was performed and a previous published meta-analysis was re-evaluated in order to clarify the discrepancy between results of these studies.MethodsA systematic review was performed by an electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases and by a manual search of reference lists for randomized controlled trials published until April 2011, with clinical outcomes and, at least, six months of clinical follow-up. A meta-analysis based on the intention to treat was performed with the selected studies.ResultsFive studies and 1,754 patients were included. There were no differences in death (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 0.88-3.95; p = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.27-1.58; p = 0.35) and major adverse cardiac events (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.49-1.13; p = 0.16). An analysis of the previous published meta-analysis strongly suggested the presence of publication bias.ConclusionsThere is no evidence to recommend routine IVUS-guided PCI with bare-metal stent implantation. This may be explained by the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies published so far.

Background The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and “standards of care” (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471). Results Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52–1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48–1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84–1.35). Conclusions The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.