Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta prevention. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta prevention. Mostrar todas las entradas

04 diciembre, 2013

Statins: new American guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease

Just change the values or target population and more people will receive more medication, is it a real  major step in the prevention of cardiovascular disease ?  Not for me, what do you think after read the new guidelines ? Are real evidences for the use statins also in primary prevention ? One billons of persons are treated today, all over the world, with this kind of drugs, and the first blockbuster drugs is Atorvastatin.........what about the evidences, and the hundreds of articles against that ? Think for yourself......

Paul M Ridker aEmail Address, Nancy R Cook a

Guidelines released on Nov 13, 2013, by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) for the management of cholesterol are a major step in the right direction. 1 These new guidelines emphasise prevention of stroke as well as heart disease, focus appropriately on statin therapy rather than alternative unproven therapeutic agents, and recognise that more intensive treatment is superior to less intensive treatment for many patients........full text.
Statins: new American guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease
Paul M Ridker,Nancy R Cook
The Lancet - 30 November 2013 ( Vol. 382, Issue 9907, Pages 1762-1765 )
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62388-0

26 junio, 2013

Behavioral Interventions and Counseling to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect




 Abstract
Background: In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force determined that evidence was insufficient to recommend behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Purpose: To review new evidence on the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and counseling in health care settings for reducing child abuse and neglect and related health outcomes, as well as adverse effects of interventions.
Data Sources: MEDLINE and PsycINFO (January 2002 to June 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the second quarter of 2012), Scopus, and reference lists.
Study Selection: English-language trials of the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and counseling and studies of any design about adverse effects.
Data Extraction: Investigators extracted data about study populations, designs, and outcomes and rated study quality using established criteria.
Data Synthesis: Eleven fair-quality randomized trials of interventions and no studies of adverse effects met inclusion criteria. A trial of risk assessment and interventions for abuse and neglect in pediatric clinics for families with children aged 5 years or younger indicated reduced physical assault, Child Protective Services (CPS) reports, nonadherence to medical care, and immunization delay among screened children. Ten trials of early childhood home visitation reported reduced CPS reports, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and self-reports of abuse and improved adherence to immunizations and well-child care, although results were inconsistent.
Limitations: Trials were limited by heterogeneity, low adherence, high loss to follow-up, and lack of standardized measures.
Conclusion: Risk assessment and behavioral interventions in pediatric clinics reduced abuse and neglect outcomes for young children. Early childhood home visitation also reduced abuse and neglect, but results were inconsistent. Additional research on interventions to prevent child abuse and neglect is needed.
Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Introduction

In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found, on the basis of the results of a previous review (1, 2), insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening of parents or caregivers for abuse or neglect of children (3, 4). This systematic review is an update for the USPSTF that focuses on studies published since the previous recommendation and addresses the effectiveness and adverse effects of behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect for children at potentially increased risk. Separate reviews examine screening women for intimate partner violence (5, 6) and elderly and vulnerable adults for abuse (6).
Approximately 695,000 children in the United States were victims of child abuse and neglect in 2010, and 1537 died (7). Most of these deaths were in infants and toddlers (7). Additional immediate health consequences of abuse and neglect include injuries and emotional and behavioral problems (8, 9). Associated long-term physical conditions include neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders; gastrointestinal problems; metabolic conditions, including diabetes; autoimmune disorders (10, 11); obesity (12, 13); chronic pain (14, 15); teen pregnancy and pregnancy complications (16); and others (17). Chronic mental health conditions include psychosis, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol and substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, depression and suicide, eating disorders, attention problems, and personality disorders (12, 18–25).
In the United States, child abuse and neglect have legal as well as medical implications. Federal legislation defines child abuse and neglect as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk for serious harm (26–28). Although laws vary, states are required to include the minimum standards of the federal law (29). All states have laws that require physicians and other health care workers, as well as other professionals who interact with children, to report suspected child abuse and neglect to Child Protective Services (CPS) (30), part of the larger U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that specifically responds to child abuse reports (28).
Physicians and other health care providers who care for children and families are uniquely situated to identify children at risk for abuse and neglect during well-child and other visits and to initiate interventions to prevent harm. Although pediatricians consider screening for abuse and neglect one of their important roles (31), it is rarely done in practice (32, 33). Barriers to screening include lack of experience, training, and confidence in handling abuse cases (32, 34–36).

23 mayo, 2013

No hay pruebas suficientes que apoyen el reposo en cama para prevenir el aborto

No hay pruebas suficientes que apoyen el reposo en cama para prevenir el aborto, ni tampoco para decir que no es efectivo. 

Posted on febrero 18, 2011 porB cama para el riesgo de aborto?




Respuesta: No hay evidencia suficiente de que el reposo en cama bien en el hospital o en el hogar prevenga el aborto involuntario en mujeres con viabilidad fetal confirmada y hemorragia vaginal en la primera mitad del embarazo. En un ensayo se produjo un mayor riesgo de aborto en las mujeres en el grupo de reposo en cama que en las de un grupo de terapia de gonadotropina coriónica humana sin reposo en cama.
Advertencia: El pequeño número de participantes en los estudios revisados es un factor importante que contribuye a resultados poco concluyentes. Actualmente no hay pruebas que puedan apoyar la recomendación de reposo en cama en la prevención del aborto involuntario, ya que ninguno de los estudios evaluaron los efectos secundarios potenciales de reposo en cama (eventos tromboembólicos, estrés materno, la depresión y el coste).
Contexto: El aborto involuntario sucede en el 10 a 15% de los embarazos en función de la edad materna y la paridad previa. Se asocia con anomalías cromosómicas en aproximadamente la mitad o dos tercios de los casos. Muchas intervenciones se han utilizado para prevenir el aborto involuntario, pero el reposo en cama es probablemente la más comúnmente prescrita en casos de amenaza de aborto y para aquellas con una historia previa de abortos.
Revisión Sistemática Cochrane:
Aleman A et al. Bed rest during pregnancy for preventing miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews, 2010, Issue 10. Article No. CD003576. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003576.pub2.
Esta revisión incluyó 2 estudios con 84 participantes
PERLA N º 288, noviembre 2010
Escrita por Brian R McAvoy. Traducida por Google y Rafael Bravo

No hay pruebas suficientes que apoyen el reposo en cama para prevenir el aborto 

Posted on febrero 18, 2011 porB cama para el riesgo de aborto?




Respuesta: No hay evidencia suficiente de que el reposo en cama bien en el hospital o en el hogar prevenga el aborto involuntario en mujeres con viabilidad fetal confirmada y hemorragia vaginal en la primera mitad del embarazo. En un ensayo se produjo un mayor riesgo de aborto en las mujeres en el grupo de reposo en cama que en las de un grupo de terapia de gonadotropina coriónica humana sin reposo en cama.
Advertencia: El pequeño número de participantes en los estudios revisados es un factor importante que contribuye a resultados poco concluyentes. Actualmente no hay pruebas que puedan apoyar la recomendación de reposo en cama en la prevención del aborto involuntario, ya que ninguno de los estudios evaluaron los efectos secundarios potenciales de reposo en cama (eventos tromboembólicos, estrés materno, la depresión y el coste).
Contexto: El aborto involuntario sucede en el 10 a 15% de los embarazos en función de la edad materna y la paridad previa. Se asocia con anomalías cromosómicas en aproximadamente la mitad o dos tercios de los casos. Muchas intervenciones se han utilizado para prevenir el aborto involuntario, pero el reposo en cama es probablemente la más comúnmente prescrita en casos de amenaza de aborto y para aquellas con una historia previa de abortos.
Revisión Sistemática Cochrane:
Aleman A et al. Bed rest during pregnancy for preventing miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews, 2010, Issue 10. Article No. CD003576. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003576.pub2.
Esta revisión incluyó 2 estudios con 84 participantes
PERLA N º 288, noviembre 2010
Escrita por Brian R McAvoy. Traducida por Google y Rafael Bravo
Enhanced by Zemanta

09 mayo, 2013

Escasa utilidad de los chequeos generales de salud

Fuente: Salud Juntos
 
Escasa utilidad de los chequeos generales de salud -> La revisión de los ensayos realizados hasta ahora sobre los chequeos generales de salud, no encuentra una reducción del riesgo de muerte por enfermedades cardiovasculares o cáncer, por lo que es poco probable que sean beneficiosos.
Rev Cochram, 31/01/2013 "General health checks for reducing illness and mortality".
Los controles generales de salud involucran múltiples pruebas en una persona que no se siente enfermo con el propósito de encontrar enfermedades de forma precoz o la prevención del desarrollo de enfermedades. Los controles de salud son un elemento común de la atención de la salud en algunos países. Aunque la intuición no dice que los controles de salud de las personas tiene sentido, la experiencia de los programas de detección de enfermedades individuales han demostrado que los beneficios pueden ser menores de lo esperado y mayores los daños. Uno de los posibles daños de los controles sanitarios es el diagnóstico y tratamiento de condiciones que no estaban destinados a causar síntomas o la muerte. Su diagnóstico, por lo tanto, puede ser superfluo y conllevan el riesgo de un tratamiento innecesario. Se identificaron 16 ensayos aleatorios que comparaban un grupo de adultos a los que se ofrecieron controles generales de salud con un grupo a los que no se ofrecieron controles de salud. Los resultados estuvieron disponibles a partir de 14 ensayos, con 182.880 participantes. Nueve ensayos estudiaron el riesgo de muerte e incluyeron  a 155.899 participantes y 11.940 muertes. No hubo ningún efecto sobre el riesgo de muerte, o en el riesgo de muerte debido a enfermedades cardiovasculares o el cáncer. No se encontró un efecto sobre el riesgo de enfermedad, un ensayo encontró un aumento en el número de personas identificadas con la presión arterial alta y el colesterol alto, y un ensayo encontró un aumento en el número de enfermedades crónicas. Un ensayo informó el número total de nuevos diagnósticos por participante y se encontró un aumento del 20% en seis años, en comparación con el grupo control. Ningún ensayo comparó el número total de fármacos nuevos, pero dos de los cuatro ensayos encontraron un mayor número de personas que utilizaron medicamentos para la presión arterial alta. Dos de cuatro ensayos encontraron que las comprobaciones de salud  hizo sentir un poco más sanos a los participantes, pero este resultado no es fiable. No se encontró que los controles de salud tuvieran un efecto en el número de ingresos en el hospital, la discapacidad, la preocupación, el número de derivaciones a especialistas, visitas adicionales al médico, o la ausencias en el trabajo, pero la mayoría de estos resultados fueron poco estudiados. Ninguno de los ensayos informó sobre el número de pruebas de seguimiento después de los resultados positivos de detección, o la cantidad de cirugía que se utilizó. Una de las razones para la aparente falta de efecto puede ser que los médicos de atención primaria ya identifican e intervienen cuando sospechan que un paciente tiene alto riesgo de desarrollar una enfermedad cuando los visitados por otras razones. También, aquellos con alto riesgo de desarrollar la enfermedad no pueden asistir a los controles generales de salud cuando sean invitados. La mayoría de los ensayos eran antiguos, lo que hace que los resultados sean menos aplicables a los ajustes actuales, debido a que los tratamientos utilizados para las condiciones y los factores de riesgo han cambiado. Con el gran número de participantes y muertes incluidos, los largos períodos de seguimiento utilizados en los ensayos, y considerando que la muerte por enfermedades cardiovasculares y el cáncer no se redujeron, es poco probable que los controles de salud en general sean beneficiosos.

Background: 
General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm.
Objectives: 
We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.
Search strategy: 
We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies.
Selection criteria: 
We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.
Data collection and analysis: 
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.
Main results: 
We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.
We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery.
Authors' conclusions: 
General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.
This record should be cited as: 
Krogsbøll LT, Jørgensen KJ, Grønhøj Larsen C, Gøtzsche PC. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD009009. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2
Assessed as up to date: 
July 4, 2012


26 septiembre, 2011

Routine HIV Screening - HIV: CDC x USPSTF


Após acabar de publicar as recomendações do US Preventive Services Task Force sobre ECG (não triar), acabo de ler o ahead of print do New England Journal of Medicine que discute justamente as recomendações da Task Force (não triar universalmente HIV) contra as recomendações do Centers for Disease Control (triagem universal).

O artigo faz um apanhado interessante da discussão entre as duas entidades acerca da análise das mesmas evidências científicas, destacando que, a despeito das evidências não serem as mesmas, a análise de diferentes pesquisadores (cochranistas x especialistas).

Os dois grupos debatem sob diversas óticas, incluindo a da economia da saúde (de custo-benefício e custo-efetividade), a do risco relacionado a triagem e da responsabilidade das próprias entidades em se obrigarem a fazer ou não recomendações.

As referências são bastante interessantes, e a ótica do autor deste artigo traduz a panacéia que existe em torno da Medicina Baseada em Evidências.

Lembrando que só recentemente o atual presidente Barack Obama suspendeu a obrigatoriedade do exame de HIV para imigrantes, uma exigência da administração anterior, é importante entender o contexto em que se desenvolvem estas recomendações.

Leia o artigo do NEJM:




Publicado originalmente por Leonardo C M Savassi