Sun protection for preventing basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers.

BACKGROUND: 'Keratinocyte cancer' is now the preferred term for the most commonly identified skin cancers basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which were previously commonly categorised as non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). Keratinocyte cancer (KC) represents about 95% of malignant skin tumours. Lifestyle changes have led to increased exposure to the sun, which has, in turn, led to a significant increase of new cases of KC, with a worldwide annual incidence of between 3% and 8%. The successful use of preventive measures could mean a significant reduction in the resources used by health systems, compared with the high cost of the treatment of these conditions. At present, there is no information about the quality of the evidence for the use of these sun protection strategies with an assessment of their benefits and risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of sun protection strategies (i.e. sunscreen and barrier methods) for preventing keratinocyte cancer (that is, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) of the skin) in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trial registries and the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of preventive strategies for keratinocyte cancer, such as physical barriers and sunscreens, in the general population (children and adults), which may provide information about benefits and adverse events related to the use of solar protection measures. We did not include trials focused on educational strategies to prevent KC or preventive strategies in high-risk groups. Our prespecified primary outcomes were BCC or cSCC confirmed clinically or by histopathology at any follow-up and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for eligibility using Early Review Organizing Software (EROS). Similarly, two review authors independently used predesigned data collection forms to extract information from the original study reports about the participants, methods of randomisation, blinding, comparisons of interest, number of participants originally randomised by arm, follow-up losses, and outcomes, and they assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any disagreement by consulting a third author and contacted trial investigators of identified trials to obtain additional information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT (factorial design) that randomised 1621 participants.This study compared the daily application of sunscreen compared with discretionary use of sunscreen, with or without beta-carotene administration, in the general population. The study was undertaken in Australia; 55.2% of participants had fair skin, and they were monitored for 4.5 years for new cases of BCC or cSCC assessed by histopathology. We found this study to be at low risk of bias for domains such as allocation, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. However, we found multiple unclear risks related to other biases, including an unclear assessment of possible interactions between the effects of the different interventions evaluated (that is, sunscreen and beta-carotene). We found no difference in terms of the number of participants developing BCC (n = 1621; risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.43) or cSCC (n = 1621; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.54) when comparing daily application of sunscreen with discretionary use, even when analyses were restricted to groups without beta-carotene supplementation. This evidence was of low quality, which means that there is some certainty that future studies may alter our confidence in this evidence.We reported adverse events in a narrative way and included skin irritation or contact allergy.We identified no studies that evaluated other sun protection measures, such as the use of sun-protective clothing, sunglasses, or hats, or seeking the shade when outdoors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we assessed the effect of solar protection in preventing the occurrence of new cases of keratinocyte cancer. We only found one study that was suitable for inclusion. This was a study of sunscreens, so we were unable to assess any other forms of sun protection. The study addressed our prespecified primary outcomes, but not most of our secondary outcomes. We were unable to demonstrate from the available evidence whether sunscreen was effective for the prevention of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).Our certainty in the evidence was low because there was a lack of histopathological confirmation of BCC or cSCC in a significant percentage of cases. Amongst other sources of bias, it was not clear whether the study authors had assessed any interaction effects between the sunscreen and beta-carotene interventions. We think that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Guía de práctica clínica para el manejo sindrómico de los pacientes con infecciones de transmisión sexual y otras infecciones del tracto genital - 2013 / Clinical practice guideline for syndromic management of patients with sexually transmitted infections and other genital tract infections - 2013

Objetivo: reducir la variabilidad de la práctica en el manejo de las infecciones del tracto genital y de las infecciones de transmisión sexual; apoyar a los profesionales de la salud que atienden pacientes con ITG/ITS, con la más reciente evidencia respecto a la efectividad y seguridad de las intervenciones para la prevención primaria, secundaria y terciaria, y generar indicadores de implementación de la guía y de su impacto en la salud pública.Materiales y métodos: se constituyó un equipo desarrollador en el que participaron diferentes profesionales de la salud y representantes de pacientes. Se formularon preguntas clínicas relevantes y se realizó una búsqueda en repositorios nacionales e internacionales de Guías. Se evaluaron las Guías disponibles en cuanto a su calidad y aplicabilidad. Dado que ninguna guía cumplió con los criterios de adaptación, se decidió el desarrollo de una Guía de Novo. Se realizó una búsqueda de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis, ensayos clínicos y estudios observacionales en las bases de datos pubmed, ovid, embase, cochrane y lilacs. Se elaboraron las tablas de evidencia y las recomendaciones con la aproximación grade por metodología de consenso formal e informal.Resultados: se presenta la “Guía de práctica clínica” con las recomendaciones y la evidencia de soporte para la prevención, el diagnóstico, tratamiento en cuanto a efectividad y seguridad, y seguimiento de los síndromes de: cervicitis, uretritis, úlcera genital, flujo vaginal, inflamación escrotal y bubón inguinal. Conclusiones: como recomendación central de implementación se plantea el manejo del paciente por medio de la dosis única y tratamiento expedito del compañero cuando sea posible. La Guía deberá actualizarse en tres años.

Objective: To reduce practice variability in the management of genital tract infections and sexually transmitted infections, and provide healthcare practitioners that care for patients with GTIs/STDs with the most recent evidence on the effectiveness and safety of the interventions for primary, secondary and tertiary prevention; and to create indicators to track the implementation of the guideline and its impact on public health. Materials and methods: A development team was set up with the participation of different healthcare professionals and patient representatives. Relevant clinical questions were asked and a search was conducted in the national and international guideline repositories. The existing guidelines were evaluated for quality and applicability. Considering that none of the guidelines met the criteria for adoption, it was decided to develop a de novo guideline. A search of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials and observational studies was conducted in the pubmed, ovid, embase, cochrane and lilacs databases. Evidence tables and recommendations were prepared using the grade approach on the basis of the informal and formal consensus methodology. Results: The “Clinical Practice Guideline” is presented, including the recommendations and support evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment in terms of effectiveness and safety, and follow-up of cervicitis, urethritis, genital ulcer, vaginal discharge, scrotal inflammation and inguinal bubo. Conclusions: The core recommendation for implementation is patient management using a single dose and expedite treatment of the partner whenever possible. The Guideline must be updated in three years.