RESUMO
The Helicobacter pylori infection is a significant issue in global health as it is associated with a range of gastrointestinal disorders and an elevated likelihood of developing stomach cancer. The declining efficacy of standard triple therapy (TT) as the recommended treatment can be attributed to the emergence of drug-resistant strains. Sequential therapy (ST) has been recognized as an alternative approach, wherein a combination of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and amoxicillin is administered for the initial five days, followed by a combination of PPI, clarithromycin, and metronidazole for the subsequent five days. In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, we have thoroughly assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of ST as a primary treatment option in comparison to TT for the eradication of H. pylori. The analysis comprised a total of 15 randomized controlled trials, encompassing a sample size of 5,219 patients. The collective findings indicate that ST exhibits promise as it achieves higher rates of eradication. Additionally, it is worth noting that this approach has the potential to yield cost savings and enhance treatment compliance when compared to TT. To summarize, this systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that ST is a viable option for the initial treatment of H. pylori eradication. It shows potential benefits compared to the standard TT, especially when there is resistance to clarithromycin. In order to establish ST as the preferred first-line treatment, it is imperative that additional research be conducted to address the aforementioned limitations and thoroughly investigate its long-term efficacy and safety profiles. Nevertheless, it is required that additional research be conducted in order to adequately tackle the constraints of the current studies and solidify its position as a favored treatment alternative. It is also essential to consider ST as a viable approach to improve the rates of H. pylori eradication. This method should be thoroughly examined in clinical practice to gain a deeper understanding of its effectiveness.
RESUMO
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is an antiretroviral drug widely used as part of antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection. Negative effects of tenofovir include impaired kidney function, especially with long-term use. In studies conducted among HIV-positive individuals, we found evidence of extensive kidney damage associated with TDF use. Despite the therapeutic importance of this consequence, its continued use in ART regimens was not contraindicated. The therapeutic and long-term effects of TDF are a major concern. However, in countries or settings where resources are limited and renal function monitoring cannot be ensured, screening methods to detect ART-related renal failure are still supported by data. Therefore, it is safe to re-evaluate the use of TDF-based ART. However, adherence to guidelines may be hampered by insufficient laboratory testing in low- and middle-income countries. More research is also needed among people under 18 years of age and pregnant and breastfeeding mothers.
RESUMO
Amyloid-ß (Aß) plaques and Neurofibrillary tangles are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. Recent advances to find a cure for AD have led to the exploration of Anti-Aß monoclonal antibodies and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). The antibodies can decrease plaque formation or remove already formed plaques. ARBs increase angiotensin II (AT2) levels and decrease the effect of AT2 on the AT1 receptor (AT1R). This systematic analysis reviews evidence of monoclonal antibodies (Aducanumab, Lecanemab, Donanemab, and Solanezumab) and ARBs in managing AD. An in-depth methodical search was conducted across PubMed, Science Direct, and Mendeley. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed for this study. Randomized control trials for antibodies and ARBs and one retrospective cohort study were included. The comparison was made among studies that shared similar measured outcomes. Antibodies were found to be more effective than ARBs, with Aducanumab and Lecanemab being the most effective. ARBs, on the other hand, were found to be the safer choice. Further trials of longer duration and larger sample sizes are needed to explore both groups' long-term safety and efficacy.
