1.
Safety and efficacy of risedronate for patients with esophageal varices and liver cirrhosis: a non-randomized clinical trial.
Lima, TB, Santos, LAA, Nunes, HRC, Silva, GF, Caramori, CA, Qi, X, Romeiro, FG
Scientific reports. 2019;(1):18958
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis in liver cirrhosis, the indication of bisphosphonates for patients with esophageal varices has been avoided due to risk of digestive mucosal damage. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of risedronate treatment for patients with osteoporosis, liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low risk of bleeding. A total of 120 patients were allocated into two groups according to their bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. In the intervention group, 57 subjects with osteoporosis received oral risedronate at 35 mg weekly plus daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. In the control group, 63 subjects with osteopenia received only calcium and vitamin D. The groups received the treatment for one year and underwent surveillance endoscopies at six and 12 months, as well as a control dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry after a 12-month follow-up. The study received Institutional Review Board approval. The groups had not only comparable Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and esophageal varices degree, but also similar incidence of digestive adverse effects. A significant improvement was achieved in the intervention group in the lumbar spine T score (p < 0.001). The results suggest that risedronate may be safely used in liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low bleeding risk under endoscopic surveillance, thus allowing bone mass recovery.
2.
Effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Vaz, EC, Porfírio, GJM, Nunes, HRC, Nunes-Nogueira, VDS
Archives of endocrinology and metabolism. 2018;62(3):337-345
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Glycaemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus is important because it impacts the development of diabetic complications. Carbohydrate counting is a meal planning tool that allows for great variation and flexibility in food choices among individuals with diabetes mellitus. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a systematic literature review. The study included randomised controlled trials with at least 3 months of follow-up, and evaluation of outcomes in which patients were randomly divided into two groups. The meta-analysis showed that the final haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) - a test that shows the average blood glucose levels for the last two to three months - was significantly lower in the carbohydrate counting group than in the control group. Authors conclude that the meta-analysis showed evidence favouring the use of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, this benefit was limited to the final HbA1c.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting (CHOC) in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1). MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic review of randomized studies that compared CHOC with general dietary advice in adult patients with DM1. The primary outcomes were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), quality of life, and episodes of severe hypoglycemia. We searched the following electronic databases: Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The quality of evidence was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS A total of 3,190 articles were identified, and two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts. From the 15 potentially eligible studies, five were included, and 10 were excluded because of the lack of randomization or different control/intervention groups. Meta-analysis showed that the final HbA1c was significantly lower in the CHOC group than in the control group (mean difference, random, 95% CI: -0.49 (-0.85, -0.13), p = 0.006). The meta-analysis of severe hypoglycemia and quality of life did not show any significant differences between the groups. According to the GRADE, the quality of evidence for severe hypoglycemia, quality of life, and change in HbA1c was low, very low, and moderate, respectively. CONCLUSION The meta-analysis showed evidence favoring the use of CHOC in the management of DM1. However, this benefit was limited to final HbA1c, which was significantly lower in the CHOC than in the control group.