RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for the self-management of SARS-Cov-2 disease (COVID-19) include self-isolation, rest, hydration, and the use of NSAID in case of high fever only. It is expected that many patients will add other symptomatic/adjuvant treatments, such as herbal medicines. AIMS: To provide a benefits/risks assessment of selected herbal medicines traditionally indicated for "respiratory diseases" within the current frame of the COVID-19 pandemic as an adjuvant treatment. METHOD: The plant selection was primarily based on species listed by the WHO and EMA, but some other herbal remedies were considered due to their widespread use in respiratory conditions. Preclinical and clinical data on their efficacy and safety were collected from authoritative sources. The target population were adults with early and mild flu symptoms without underlying conditions. These were evaluated according to a modified PrOACT-URL method with paracetamol, ibuprofen, and codeine as reference drugs. The benefits/risks balance of the treatments was classified as positive, promising, negative, and unknown. RESULTS: A total of 39 herbal medicines were identified as very likely to appeal to the COVID-19 patient. According to our method, the benefits/risks assessment of the herbal medicines was found to be positive in 5 cases (Althaea officinalis, Commiphora molmol, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Hedera helix, and Sambucus nigra), promising in 12 cases (Allium sativum, Andrographis paniculata, Echinacea angustifolia, Echinacea purpurea, Eucalyptus globulus essential oil, Justicia pectoralis, Magnolia officinalis, Mikania glomerata, Pelargonium sidoides, Pimpinella anisum, Salix sp, Zingiber officinale), and unknown for the rest. On the same grounds, only ibuprofen resulted promising, but we could not find compelling evidence to endorse the use of paracetamol and/or codeine. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that several herbal medicines have safety margins superior to those of reference drugs and enough levels of evidence to start a clinical discussion about their potential use as adjuvants in the treatment of early/mild common flu in otherwise healthy adults within the context of COVID-19. While these herbal medicines will not cure or prevent the flu, they may both improve general patient well-being and offer them an opportunity to personalize the therapeutic approaches.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The calculation of noncancer-specific life expectancy can guide shared decision-making and avoid over- and undertreatment in older adults with cancer. Several factors determine life expectancy, including socio-demographic background, comorbidities, physical performance, and geriatric assessment variables. We present an overview of existing tools to estimate life expectancy, as well as practical examples of how to take into account the patient's noncancer-specific life expectancy when discussing screening decisions, initiation of treatment, and end-of-life care. RECENT FINDINGS: Life expectancy prognostication has been recently recommended by international societies as part of the initial assessment of all older adults with cancer. Additionally, online resources have been created in order to make life expectancy calculation tools accessible for clinicians. Understanding available methods to estimate life expectancy, as well as how to utilize them, is a fundamental part of geriatric oncology that should be integrated into everyday clinical practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RESUMEN INTRODUCCIÓN: Los nuevos anticoagulantes orales son el más reciente avance en anticoagulación oral. Existen suficientes estudios publicados, pero muy poca síntesis de la información. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de los estudios en Medline, Cochrane y Embase con los términos predefinidos. Se aplicaron los criterios de inclusión y exclusión definidos, se definieron las variables utilizadas en este estudio según el beneficio (reducción de la mortalidad y reducción del ACV) y el riesgo en la anticoagulación (sangrado intracraneal, sangrado gastrointestinal, sangrado mayor y otros sangrados). Se seleccionaron los artículos y se extrajo la información en una hoja de cálculo para análisis. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 24 meta-análisis y 62 subanálisis; 77 % de los meta-análisis mostraron reducción de ACV, 65 % mortalidad, 71 % reportó disminución de hemorragia intracraneal y 45 % de sangrado mayor, pero hubo aumento de sangrado gastrointestinal en el 5 4% de los estudios. En relación a los resultados de los subanálisis, 4 estudios mostraron algún dato estadísticamente significativo para apixabán, 5 para dabigatrán, 3 para edoxabán y 5 estudios para rivaroxabán. Existen diferencias en algunas variables como sexo, riesgo de ACV, resultados a 30 días, función renal; diferentes dosis (dabigatrán y edoxabán), según la edad, síntomas gastrointestinales, relación con el INR; niveles séricos del medicamento, uso de amiodarona, uso previo de warfarina; enfermedad arterial periférica, transición a warfarina; factores de riesgo de HGI y sangrado mayor para cada anticoagulante en particular. CONCLUSIONES: Los nuevos anticoagulantes orales muestran mejor perfil de seguridad y de eficacia frente a warfarina.

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION: New oral anticoagulants are the latest advancement in oral anticoagulation. Several studies are published, but a few studies of synthesis information. METHODS: A systematic review of the studies in MEDLINE, COCHRANE and EMBASE was performed with the predefined terms. The defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied; variables used in this study were defined according to benefits (reduction of mortality and reduction of stroke) and anticoagulation risks (intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding and other bleeding). Articles were selected and information was extracted into a spreadsheet for analysis. RESULT: Were included 24 meta-analyzes and 62 sub-analyzes; 77% of meta-analyzes showed stroke reduction, 65% in mortality, 71% reported decreased of intracranial hemorrhage and 45% in major bleeding, but there was an increase in gastrointestinal bleeding in 54% of the studies. Regarding the results of the sub-analysis, 4 studies for apixaban, 5 for dabigatran, 3 for edoxaban and 5 studies for rivaroxaban showed some statistically significant data. There are differences in some variables such as sex, stroke risk, 30-day results, renal function; Different doses (dabigatran and Edoxaban), according to age, gastrointestinal symptoms, relation with INR; Serum levels of the drug, use of amiodarone, prior use of warfarin; Peripheral arterial disease, transition to warfarin; Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding and major bleeding for each particular anticoagulant. CONCLUSION: The new oral anticoagulants shows better safety and efficacy profile against Warfarin.

Asunto(s)