RESUMO

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND:: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES:: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS:: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions.Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS:: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS:: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUÇÃO: O médico atualizado pode oferecer o melhor cuidado ao paciente e evitar consequências negativas que a defasagem científica pode acarretar. OBJETIVOS: Identificar os meios de atualização utilizados pelos psiquiatras brasileiros; avaliar seus conhecimentos sobre Medicina Baseada em Evidências (MBE) e sua utilização na educação permanente. MÉTODO: Estudo transversal realizado no XXIV Congresso Brasileiro de Psiquiatria. Os participantes (n = 188) responderam um questionário anônimo autoaplicado, com 28 perguntas sobre características sociodemográficas, fontes e periodicidade de atualização, e conhecimentos sobre MBE. RESULTADOS: Para atualização de conhecimentos, 98,3 por cento utilizavam os congressos brasileiros; 97,9 por cento as revistas nacionais; 93,9 por cento os livros-texto; 89,9 por cento as revistas das indústrias farmacêuticas; 63,5 por cento os consensos brasileiros; 63,3 por cento a base de dados Medline; 56,7 por cento as revistas internacionais; e 35 por cento a Biblioteca Cochrane. Os fatores estatisticamente significativos associados com bom conhecimento sobre MBE foram estar graduados há menos de dez anos (p < 0,001), usar o Medline (p < 0,009) e a Biblioteca Cochrane (p < 0,03) como fonte de busca de literatura médica. CONCLUSÕES: Os psiquiatras fazem pouco uso da melhor fonte de evidência para educação médica permanente e continuada, havendo, assim, menor benefício aos pacientes na tomada de decisão clínica.

BACKGROUND: Up-to-date psychiatrists provide better patient care and avoid the potentially negative consequences of outdated scientific knowledge. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify how Brazilian psychiatrists update their skills, and to evaluate their knowledge of evidenced-based medicine (EBM) and its use in continuing medical education. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at the 24th Brazilian Congress of Psychiatry. Participants (n = 188) answered an anonymous, selfapplied questionnaire with 28 questions on socio-demographic characteristics, sources and frequency of updating, and knowledge of EBM. RESULTS: To update their knowledge, 98.3 percent of the sample attended Brazilian congresses, 97.9 percent read Brazilian medical journals, 93.9 percent used textbooks, 89.9 percent consulted journals published by pharmaceutical companies, 63.5 percent accessed the Brazilian guidelines, 63.3 percent used the Medline database, 56.7 percent read international journals, and 35 percent accessed the Cochrane Library. Factors that showed statistically significant association with good knowledge of EBM were having graduated from medical school less than ten years before (p < 0.001) and use of Medline (p < 0.009) and Cochrane Library (p < 0.03) as sources for searching the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: Brazilian psychiatrists make limited use of the best sources of evidence for continuing medical education, thus producing less benefit for patients in clinical decision-making.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUÇÃO: O CFM INstituiu o Código de Ética Médica (CEM), cuja violação implica sanções, impondo aos profissionais a ele submetidos seu conhecimento e aplicação, por meio de conduta permeada pelos prima facie ducties. Conhecer o assunto torna-se condição básica para sua observação. Daí a importância deste ensino desde os primeiros anos do curso médico, fornecendo ao estudante capacidade de análise ética na prática profissional futura. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar o grau de conhecimento sobre as disposições do CEM relativas a "responsabilidade profissional" e "segredo médico" entre estudantes de Medicina da Famema e verificar se há evolução desse conhecimento durante a graduação. MÉTODO: Estudo realizado em dez meses, com 479 estudantes do primeiro ao sexto ano, regularmente matriculados. Aplicado questionário anônimo, com duas partes: uma com dados sociodemográficos e outra composta por 11 cenários clínicos, envolvendo questões eticamente conflituosas. RESULTADOS: 395 estudantes responderam o questionário (82,46 por cento da amostra inicial). Ao se comparar a média total de acertos entre as turmas nos cenários, encontrou-se o valor de p = 0,7148, sem significância estatística. CONCLUSÕES: Não há diferença estatisticamente significativa no grau de conhecimento sobre ética entre as séries. Sugere-se a introdução efetiva do assunto na graduação do curso médico, com metodologia de ensino adequada.

INTRODUCTION: The Brazilian National Board of Medicine (CFM) established the Medical Code of Ethics, the infringement of which involves sanctions and requires that physicians be familiar with and comply with it, by means of conduct governed by prima facie duties. Familiarity with the code is essential for adhering to it. Hence the importance of teaching the subject in the early years of undergraduate medical training, furnishing students with the skills for ethical analysis in their future professional practice. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the degree of knowledge on the provisions of the Medical Code of Ethics concerning "physician responsibility" and "patient confidentiality" among students at the Marília School of Medicine in São Paulo State, Brazil, and verify possible trends and changes in this knowledge during their undergraduate training. METHOD: The study covered a ten-month period, with an initial sample of 479 medical students (first to sixth years) that were presented with an anonymous questionnaire in two parts: one with socio-demographic data and the other with 11 clinical scenarios involving ethically conflictive issues. RESULTS: 395 students answered the questionnaire (82.46 percent of the initial sample). Comparison of the overall average number of correct answers among the various undergraduate years showed a p-value of 0.7148, without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in the degree of knowledge on medical ethics, when comparing the various years over the course of undergraduate medical training. The results thus suggest the need to introduce the subject of medical ethics into undergraduate medical education, with an appropriate didactic methodology.

Assuntos