Você está na página 1de 6

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in women of different races

Abstract
Background
Although hypertension treatment in women is recommended to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease (Wenger 1993, Kaplan 1995, Kuhn 1993, Hayes 1998, JNCVI,1997), the evidence for treatment benefit is primarily based on combined results for men and women (Collins 1990, Insua 1994, Mulrow 1994, Psaty 1997).

Objectives
To assess whether the relative and absolute benefit of hypertension treatment in women varies with age or race.

Search methods
Literature search of studies from 1966 to 1998 using MEDLINE, reviews, and consultation with experts.

Selection criteria
Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatment of primary hypertension, with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality outcomes, and with over one hundred women enrolled.

Data collection and analysis


The pooled population included 23,000 women. Relative risks were combined for each endpoint to form summary risk ratios (RR) using meta-analytic techniques based on a random-effects model. Summary RR's were converted to numbers needed to treat (NNT). Data were dichotomized by age to approximate menopausal status (30 to 54 years, and 55 years and older), and by race (white and African American).

Main results
In women ages 55 years or older (90% white), hypertension treatment results in a 38% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% confidence interval (CI) 27-47%, 5 year NNT 78), a 25% reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 1733%, 5 year NNT 58), and a 17% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3-29%, 5 year NNT 282). In women ages 30 to 54 years (79% white), hypertension treatment results in a 41% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% CI 8-63%, 5 year NNT 264), and a 27% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 444%, 5 year NNT 259). Hypertension treatment in African American women (mean age 52 years) reduced the risk of fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events by 53% (95% CI 29-69%, 5 year NNT 39), fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events by 45% (95% CI 18-63%, 5 year

NNT 21), fatal and nonfatal coronary events by 33% (95% CI 6-52%, 5 year NNT 48), and all cause mortality by 34% (95% CI 14-49%, 5 year NNT 32). Analyses in white women 30 to 54 years old did not show any statistically significant treatment benefit or harm.

Authors' conclusions
Hypertension treatment lowers the relative and absolute risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in women ages 55 years and older, and in African American women of all ages. A greater effort should be made to increase awareness and treatment in these groups of women. Although relative risk reductions for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events are similar for younger and older women, the NNT of younger women is at least 4 times higher. Decisions for treatment of hypertension in younger white women should be influenced by the individual patient's absolute risk of cardiovascular disease.

Pharmacological interventions for hypertensive emergencies

Abstract
Background
Hypertensive emergencies, marked hypertension associated with acute end-organ damage, are life-threatening conditions. Many anti-hypertensive drugs have been used in these clinical settings. The benefits and harms of such treatment and the best first-line treatment are not known.

Objectives
To answer the following two questions using randomized controlled trials (RCTs): 1) does anti-hypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or no treatment affect mortality and morbidity in patients presenting with a hypertensive emergency? 2) Does one first-line antihypertensive drug class as compared to another antihypertensive drug class affect mortality and morbidity in these patients?

Search methods
Electronic sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane clinical trial register. In addition, we searched for references in review articles and trials. We attempted to contact trialists. Most recent search August 2007.

Selection criteria
All unconfounded, truly randomized trials that compare an antihypertensive drug versus placebo, no treatment, or another antihypertensive drug from a different class in patients presenting with a hypertensive emergency.

Data collection and analysis


Quality of concealment allocation was scored. Data on randomized patients, total serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, withdrawals due to adverse events, length of follow-up, blood pressure and heart rate were extracted independently and cross checked.

Main results
Fifteen randomized controlled trials (representing 869 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials included a placebo arm. All studies (except one) were open-label trials. Seven drug classes were evaluated in those trials: nitrates (9 trials), ACE-inhibitors (7), diuretics (3), calcium channel blockers (6), alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists (4), direct vasodilators (2) and dopamine agonists (1). Mortality event data were reported in 7 trials. No meta-analysis was performed for clinical outcomes, due to insufficient data. The pooled effect of 3 different anti-hypertensive drugs in one placebo-controlled trial showed a statistically significant greater reduction in both systolic [WMD -13, 95%CI -19,-7] and diastolic [WMD -8, 95%CI, -12,-3] blood pressure with antihypertensive therapy.

Authors' conclusions
There is no RCT evidence demonstrating that anti-hypertensive drugs reduce mortality or morbidity in patients with hypertensive emergencies. Furthermore, there is insufficient RCT evidence to determine which drug or drug class is most effective in reducing mortality and morbidity. There were some minor differences in the degree of blood pressure lowering when one class of antihypertensive drug is compared to another. However, the clinical significance is unknown. RCTs are needed to assess different drug classes to determine initial and longer term mortality and morbidity outcomes. Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment

Abstract
Background
Managing children is a challenge that many dentists face. Many non-pharmacological techniques have been developed to manage anxiety and behavioural problems in children, such us: 'tell, show & do', positive reinforcement, modelling and hypnosis. The use of hypnosis is generally an overlooked area, hence the need for this review.

Objectives
This systematic review attempted to answer the question: What is the effectiveness of hypnosis (with or without sedation) for behaviour management of children who are receiving dental care in order to allow successful completion of treatment? Null hypothesis: Hypnosis has no effect on the outcome of dental treatment of children.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO. Electronic and manual searches were performed using controlled vocabulary and free text terms with no language restrictions. Date of last search: 11th June 2010.

Selection criteria
All children and adolescents aged up to 16 years of age. Children having any dental treatment, such as: simple restorative treatment with or without local anaesthetic, simple extractions or management of dental trauma.

Data collection and analysis


Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2.

Main results
Only three RCTs (with 69 participants) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were not possible due to insufficient number of studies.

Authors' conclusions
Although there are a considerable number of anecdotal accounts indicating the benefits of using hypnosis in paediatric dentistry, on the basis of the three studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review there is not yet enough evidence to suggest its beneficial effects. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Abstract
Background
Fluoride toothpastes have been widely used for over 3 decades and remain a benchmark intervention for the prevention of dental caries.

Objectives
To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride toothpastes in the prevention of caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2000, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers.

Selection criteria
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride toothpaste with placebo in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS).

Data collection and analysis


Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the increment in the control group. Random-effects metaanalyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects metaregression analyses.

Main results
Seventy-four studies were included. For the 70 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 42,300 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 24% (95% confidence interval (CI), 21 to 28%; P < 0.0001). This means that 1.6 children need to brush with a fluoride toothpaste (rather than a non-fluoride toothpaste) to prevent one D(M)FS in populations with caries increment of 2.6 D(M)FS per year. In populations with caries increment of 1.1 D(M)FS per year, 3.7 children will need to use a fluoride toothpaste to avoid one D(M)FS. There was clear heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (P < 0.0001). The effect of fluoride toothpaste increased with higher baseline levels of D(M)FS, higher fluoride concentration, higher frequency of use, and supervised brushing, but was not influenced by exposure to water fluoridation. There is little information concerning the deciduous dentition or adverse effects (fluorosis).

Authors' conclusions
Supported by more than half a century of research, the benefits of fluoride toothpastes are firmly established. Taken together, the trials are of relatively high quality, and provide clear evidence that fluoride toothpastes are efficacious in preventing caries.

Você também pode gostar