Systematic review and cost-utility of high flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in children with acute severe or moderate bronchiolitis in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) have emerged as alternatives to orotracheal intubation and conventional invasive ventilation in patients with moderate to severe bronchiolitis. This study aims to evaluate the evidence and the cost-utility of HFNC compared to CPAP in infants with moderate-severe bronchiolitis in Colombia. METHODS: The search includes electronic databases such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Embase. Through inclusion and exclusion criteria, screen randomized controlled trials. A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-utility of CPAP compared with HFNC in infants with moderate-severe bronchiolitis. Sensitivity analysis of transition probabilities, utilities, and cost was carried out. RESULTS: Incorporate five studies that meet the criteria. The risk of intubation rate in the patients with CPAP is lower than HFNC (relative risk 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.84; I2 = 0%) The base-case analysis showed that compared with HFNC, CPAP was associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The expected annual cost per patient with CPAP was US$17,574 and with HFNC was US$29,421. The QALYs per person estimated with CPAP were 0.92 and with HFNC was 0.91. This position of absolute dominance of CPAP (CPAP has lower costs and higher QALYs than HFNI) makes it unnecessary to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is cost-effective, over the HFNC, in infants with severe-moderate bronchiolitis in Colombia. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other countries.

Safety and efficacy of different antibiotic regimens in patients with ocular toxoplasmosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual loss by controlling infection and inflammation. However, there remains disagreement regarding optimal antibiotic therapy for OT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the effects and safety of existing antibiotic treatment regimens for OT. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Gray Literature in Europe ("OpenGrey") were searched for relevant studies; manual searches of reference lists were performed for studies identified by other methods. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic schemes known to be effective in OT at any dosage, duration, and administration route were included. Studies comparing antibiotics with placebo were excluded. This review followed standard methodological procedures recommended by the Cochrane group. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the narrative summary, of which four were included for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Interventions were organized into three groups: intravitreal clindamycin versus pyrimethamine + sulfadiazine, trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole versus other antibiotics, and other interventions. The first comparison favored intravitreal clindamycin (Mean difference (MD) = 0.10 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.22). However, this finding lacks clinical relevance. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: No antibiotic scheme was superior to others, and the selection of a treatment regimen depends on multiple factors; therefore, treatment should be chosen based on safety, sulfa allergies, and availability.

Antibiotic treatment for ocular toxoplasmosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, leading to visual impairment in a high proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual impairment by reducing the size of the retinochoroidal scar, the risk of recurrence, and the severity and duration of acute symptoms. Although OT is a very common cause of infectious posterior uveitis, its treatment remains controversial. Through our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to provide the best possible evidence-based information on the safety and effectiveness of the different antibiotic regimes for OT. METHODS: This systematic review protocol has been developed based on PRISMA-P guidelines for reporting systematic reviews evaluating health care interventions. We will include all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different antibiotics used for the treatment of OT. We will consider changes in visual acuity, number of recurrences, improvement or worsening of ocular inflammation, size of lesion, and adverse effects as our outcomes. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Studies that compared antibiotics with placebo will be excluded. The reviews will be assessed for quality and relevance. We will assess the risk of bias in five domains according to Cochrane group's tool. The type of data will dictate measures of treatment effect. We will use a random-effects model to calculate our meta-analysis, as eligible studies represent clinically varied populations of participants. DISCUSSION: The strength of our study will lie in the exhaustive and systematic nature of the literature search, as well as in its methods for assessing quality and analyzing RCT data. Considering the controversial efficacy of the treatment for OT, our study will contribute to improving the existing evidence on the effectiveness of different antibiotics. Future studies may be conducted to increase physicians' awareness of antibiotic therapies, improving the health of patients with OT. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018085468.

Rosuvastatin: Role in Cardiovascular High-risk Patient / Papel de la Rosuvastatina en el paciente con alto riesgo cardiovascular

Statins are the lipid-lowering drug family of first choice in situations of hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia with predominant increase in cholesterol. The evidence shows conclusively that each one of the commercially available statins have proven benefits on outcomes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, rosuvastatin has certain pharmacokinetic efficacy and cost-effectiveness characteristics that make it an attractive molecule to be the statin of choice in patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Las estatinas son la familia farmacológica hipolipemiante de primera opción en situaciones de hipercolesterolemia o dislipiemia mixta con predominio de aumento en el colesterol. La evidencia demuestra contundentemente que cada una de las estatinas disponibles en el mercado ha mostrado beneficios en desenlaces de morbi-mortalidad cardiovascular. Sin embargo, la rosuvastatina presenta ciertas características farmacocinéticas de eficacia y de costo-efectividad que la hacen una molécula atractiva para ser la estatina de elección en pacientes de alto riesgo cardiovascular.