Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 13(3): e0194858, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29590188

RESUMO

Our objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness of shorter versus longer duration antibiotics for treatment of bacterial infections in adults and children in secondary care settings, using the evidence from published systematic reviews. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Cinahl. Our primary outcome was clinical resolution. The quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria, and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE criteria. We included 6 systematic reviews (n = 3,162). Four reviews were rated high quality, and two of moderate quality. In adults, there was no difference between shorter versus longer duration in clinical resolution rates for peritonitis (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09, I2 = 0%), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, I2 = 24%), or acute pyelonephritis and septic UTI (clinical failure: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.18). The quality of the evidence was very low to moderate. In children, there was no difference in clinical resolution rates for pneumonia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04, I2 = 48%), pyelonephritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) and confirmed bacterial meningitis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11, I2 = 0%). The quality of the evidence was low to moderate. In conclusion, there is currently a limited body of evidence to clearly assess the clinical benefits of shorter versus longer duration antibiotics in secondary care. High quality trials assessing strategies to shorten antibiotic treatment duration for bacterial infections in secondary care settings should now be a priority.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Humanos , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Atenção Secundária à Saúde , Fatores de Tempo
2.
Clin Med Insights Oncol ; 8: 29-36, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24678245

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to make an indirect comparison between enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate for mCRPC post-docetaxel. METHODS: A search for published phase 3 trials was performed with PubMed. Indirect comparisons of enzalutamide (AFFIRM) to abiraterone acetate (COU-AA-301) on outcomes overall survival (OS), time to prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) progression, radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), and PSA response were constructed in the context of log-linear regression models. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.07). However, there was some evidence that enzalutamide may outperform abiraterone acetate with respect to secondary outcomes: time to PSA progression (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.53), radiographic PFS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.74), and PSA response rates (RRs) (OR 10.69, 95% CI 3.92-29.20). CONCLUSION: While there was no statistically significant difference in OS, enzalutamide may be advantageous for secondary endpoints. Findings of this indirect comparison serve to be hypothesis-generating for future head-to-head trials.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...