Biomedical subjects

H Saconato

Publications and source records attributed to H Saconato.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in asthma: systematic review of randomized-clinical trials using the Cochrane Collaboration method.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is effective and safe in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is no meta-analysis in asthma treatment. METHODS: The clinical efficacy of SLIT for asthma was evaluated through a systematic review with meta-analysis. MEDLINE (1966-2005), EMBASE (1974-2005), LILACS (1982-2005), and the Cochrane Library were searched for related literature in any language. Randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCT) on SLIT in asthma treatment for adults and children were selected. From 119 citations, 25 studies with 1706 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For each report, quality scores were assigned and data were extracted in relation to the outcomes analyzed: asthmatic symptoms, use of asthma medications, lung function, and bronchial provocation. RESULTS: According to the Jadad quality method, 64% of the studies were assigned scores of 4 or 5. Immunotherapy was seen to significantly reduce asthma severity when parameter compositions were all analyzed by categorical outcomes. There was a nonsignificant reduction in asthma symptoms when analyzed using standardized mean differences. No severe reactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found that SLIT is beneficial for asthma treatment albeit the magnitude of the effect is not very large. Moreover, it is a safe alternative to the subcutaneous route. More RCT with standardization of symptom scores and medications are needed in order to contribute further to this subject.

Administration, Sublingual↗

PubMed2005

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 15 April 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1984 to April 2004), EMBASE (1984 to June 2003), LILACS (1984 to April 2004) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Delayed-Action Preparations↗

PubMed2003

Depot versus daily administration of GnRH agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles: a Cochrane Review.

UNLABELLED: This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002 (see www.CochraneLibrary.net for information) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. BACKGROUND: GnRH agonists have been widely used in cycles of IVF. There are two types of GnRH agonist administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in IVF cycles in the long protocol: one consisting of daily low doses of GnRH agonist and the other the administration of analogues in higher, long-acting doses (depot). The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose with that of daily GnRH agonist doses in IVF cycles. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. RESULTS: The studies do not indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRH agonist and of daily GnRH agonist in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman [odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.37]. However, there was sufficient evidence showing that the use of depot GnRH agonist for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophin ampoules [weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.30, 95% CI 1.27-5.34] and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.81), as compared with the use of daily GnRH agonist. CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognize that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocols using depot or daily GnRH agonist for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRH agonist is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time needed for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRH agonist would increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Delayed-Action Preparations↗

PubMed2002

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: The study analyses RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Delayed-Action Preparations↗

PubMed2002

Metoclopramide for migration of naso-enteral tube.

BACKGROUND: Enteral alimentation by feeding tube is a common problem and an efficient method of providing nutritional support to hospitalized patients with insufficient oral intake, but adequate gastrointestinal function. The use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve transpyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on transpyloric passage of the naso-enteral tube. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases. SELECTION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: Adults needing enteral nutrition. Types of intervention: Intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide compared to placebo or no intervention. Types of studies: Randomised controlled trials. Types of outcome measures: The success of migration of transpyloric intubation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers evaluated the allocation concealment, which was classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included and analysed. There was no statistically significant difference between intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide administered to promote the tube migration (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.28). Intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23) and 20 mg (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 10.84) were equally ineffective in facilitating transpyloric intubation. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Four studies were included and analysed. There was no statistically significant difference between intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide administered to promote the tube migration (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.28). Intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23) and 20 mg (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 10.84) were equally ineffective in facilitating transpyloric intubation.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2001

Antibiotic prophylaxis for mammalian bites.

BACKGROUND: Bites by mammals are a common problem and they account for up to 1% of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. Dog and cat bites are the most common and people are usually bitten by their own pets or by an animal known to them. School-age children make up almost a half of those bitten. Prevention of tetanus, rabies and wound infection are the priorities for staff in emergency rooms. The use of antibiotics may be useful to reduce the risk of developing a wound infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the use of prophylactic antibiotics in mammalian bites is effective in preventing bite wound infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases in November 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which studied patients with bites from all mammals. Comparisons were made between antibiotics and placebo or no intervention. The outcome of interest was the number of infections at the site of bite. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies were included. The use of prophylactic antibiotics was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of infection after bites by humans. Prophylactic antibiotics did not appear to reduce the rate of infection after bites by cats or dogs. Wound type, e.g. laceration or puncture, did not appear to influence the effectiveness of the prophylactic antibiotic. Prophylactic antibiotics were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of infection in hand bites (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.86; NNT = 4, 95% CI 2 to 50). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that prophylactic antibiotics reduces the risk of infection after human bites but confirmatory research is required. There is no evidence that the use of prophylactic antibiotics is effective for cat or dog bites. There is evidence that the use of antibiotic prophylactic after bites of the hand reduces infection but confirmatory research is required.

Animals↗

PubMed2000

Interventions for treating schistosomiasis mansoni.

BACKGROUND: Schistosomiasis is a parasite that is carried by freshwater snails. The intestinal form infects the intestine, liver and spleen and can be fatal. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of oxamniquine or praziquantel for treating Schistosomiasis mansoni SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Lilacs and reference lists of articles. The Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical and Brazilian Tropical Medicine Congress abstracts were handsearched SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing oxamniquine and/or praziquantel to placebo for the treatment of Schistosomiasis mansoni. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Praziquantel and oxamniquine were effective in curing Schistosoma mansoni infection when compared to placebo. In Africa, praziquantel 40 mg/Kg is more effective than oxamniquine 15 mg/Kg in individuals older than 14 years (OR 3.54, 95%CI 1.70, 7.38), but no difference was found when compared with oxamniquine 30 mg/Kg (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08, 1.01). In Brazil, praziquantel was equally effective when compared with oxamniquine in individuals older than 14 years (OR 1.70, 95%CI 0.83, 3.49). Both drugs appear safe. There was no difference in reinfection rate between zinc supplementation and placebo (OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.47, 1.41). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: IPraziquantel and oxamniquine both appear to be effective for the treatment of Schistosomiasis mansoni, although lower doses of oxamniquine (less than 30 milligrams per kilogram) may not be as effective.

Humans↗