ContextoA retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica é uma doença crônica que atinge entre 0,5 e 24,5/105 habitantes no mundo. Diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais recomendam o emprego de aminosalicilatos (entre eles, a mesalazina) como terapia de primeira linha na indução da remissão da retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica, com manutenção destes agentes após a remissão. Mas as múltiplas doses diárias necessárias comprometem a adesão ao tratamento, que é muito baixa (entre 45% e 65%). A utilização de mesalazina em grânulos (sachê 2 g) dose única diária - Pentasa®sachê 2 g - pode aumentar a aderência ao tratamento, refletindo numa melhora nos desfechos dos pacientes.ObjetivoAvaliar as evidências sobre o uso de mesalazina para a manutenção da remissão em pacientes com retocolite ulcerativa inespecífica e sua eficácia quando tomada uma vez versus mais de uma vez ao dia. Do ponto de vista econômico, avaliar o impacto que a adoção desta posologia teria para o sistema público de saúde do país, comparada ao tratamento padrão atual, considerando a adesão dos pacientes.MétodosFoi elaborada uma árvore de decisão construída a partir do Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas de Colite Ulcerativa, publicado pelo Ministério da Saúde na portaria SAS/MS n° 861, de 04 de novembro de 2002, e de algoritmos publicados pela Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, objetivando-se obter o custo-efetividade da mesalazina dose única diária em grânulos comparado com mesalazina duas vezes ao dia em comprimidos.ResultadosO emprego de mesalazina aumenta as chances de indução da remissão e sua manutenção, quando comparado a placebo, sendo que doses maiores se associam a maior chance de sucesso sem aumento no risco de eventos adversos.ConclusãoO emprego de dose única diária na manutenção da remissão é efetivo e relacionado à maior adesão do paciente em comparação a posologias com múltiplas doses diárias, além de ter menor custo.

ContextUnspecified Ulcerative Rectocolitis is a chronic disease that affects between 0.5 and 24.5/105 inhabitants in the world. National and international clinical guidelines recommend the use of aminosalicylates (including mesalazine) as first-line therapy for induction of remission of unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis, and recommend the maintenance of these agents after remission is achieved. However, multiple daily doses required for the maintenance of disease remission compromise compliance with treatment, which is very low (between 45% and 65%). Use of mesalazina in granules (2 g sachet) once daily - Pentasa® sachets 2 g - can enhance treatment adherence, reflecting in an improvement in patients' outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence on the use of mesalazine for the maintenance of remission in patients with unspecified ulcerative rectocolitis and its effectiveness when taken once versus more than once a day. From an economic standpoint, to analyze the impact of the adoption of this dosage in Brazil's public health system, considering patients' adherence to treatment.MethodsA decision tree was developed based on the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines for Ulcerative Colitis, published by the Ministry of Health in the lobby SAS/MS n° 861 of November 4 th, 2002 and on the algorithms published by the Associação Brasileira de Colite Ulcerativa e Doença de Crohn, aiming to get the cost-effectiveness of mesalazine once daily in granules compared with mesalazine twice daily in tablets.ResultsThe use of mesalazine increases the chances of remission induction and maintenance when compared to placebo, and higher doses are associated with greater chance of success without increasing the risk of adverse events.ConclusionThe use of a single daily dose in the maintenance of remission is effective and related to higher patient compliance when compared to the multiple daily dose regimens, with lower costs.

Objectives At present there are several drugs for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (ARCC). The main objective of this work was to perform a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of clinical randomized studies that compared target cell therapies (TCT). Materials and Methods SR identified clinical randomized trials that compared TCT versus interferon-alpha in the treatment of patients with ARCC. In order to analyze efficiency, it was evaluated free-survival progression (FSP), total survival (TS) and response rate (RR). Results In relation to first line treatment, seven studies of TCT were identified using sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab and temsirolimus; and two studies with sorafenib and everolimus for second line treatment. Relative risk (RRi) of MA for FSP of first line therapies was: 0.83, CI = 0.78-0.87, I2 = 94% and p < 0.00001. Best results of RR of specific FSP among studies were: 0.38, sunitinib, CI = 0.25-0.58, bevacizumab, 0.62, CI = 0.47-0.83; and temsirolimus, 0.78, CI = 0.70-0.87. MA didn't show any benefit regarding TS of first line treatment of all analyzed drugs. As for RR significant results were: sunitinib, 3.83 CI = 2.86-5.12; bevacizumab, 2.52 CI = 1.78-3.57 and bevacizumab, 1.97 CI = 1.43-2.71. Conclusions: For first line treatment, sunitinib was the most effective TCT in relation to FPS; there was no alteration of TS and RR was small but significant for sunitinib and bevacizumab. Available studies could not conclude any results for second line treatments.

As técnicas de medicina baseada em evidências são cada vez mais utilizadas para a construção de diretrizes clínicas e recomendações para a prática médica. O uso de níveis de evidências permite que o leitor identifique a qualidade da informação científica que sustenta as recomendações feitas pelos especialistas. Esta revisão teve por objetivo abordar conceitos atuais sobre o impacto clínico, diagnóstico e tratamento das infecções por Pseudomonas aeruginosa em pacientes com fibrose cística. Para a elaboração desta revisão, o grupo de autores definiu as perguntas que seriam respondidas, seguindo os preceitos de PICO, acrônimo baseado em perguntas referentes aos Pacientes de interesse, Intervenção a ser estudada, Comparação da intervenção e Outcome (desfecho) de interesse. Para cada pergunta, uma revisão estruturada da literatura foi realizada nas bases de dados do Medline, buscando identificar os estudos com desenho metodológico mais adequado para responder à questão. As perguntas foram designadas para que cada um dos autores redigisse uma resposta, e um primeiro rascunho foi elaborado e discutido pelo grupo em uma reunião presencial. Após essa discussão, recomendações foram emitidas com base na força das evidências e na concordância entre os membros do grupo segundo o sistema de classificação do Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.

Evidence-based techniques have been increasingly used in the creation of clinical guidelines and the development of recommendations for medical practice. The use of levels of evidence allows the reader to identify the quality of scientific information that supports the recommendations made by experts. The objective of this review was to address current concepts related to the clinical impact, diagnosis, and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in patients with cystic fibrosis. For the preparation of this review, the authors defined a group of questions that would be answered in accordance with the principles of PICO–an acronym based on questions regarding the Patients of interest, Intervention being studied, Comparison of the intervention, and Outcome of interest. For each question, a structured review of the literature was performed using the Medline database in order to identify the studies with the methodological design most appropriate to answering the question. The questions were designed so that each of the authors could write a response. A first draft was prepared and discussed by the group. Recommendations were then made on the basis of the level of scientific evidence, in accordance with the classification system devised by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as well as the level of agreement among the members of the group.

PURPOSE: In Brazil, National data regarding the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are scarce. The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics of RCC diagnosed and treated by members of the SBU - Brazilian Society of Urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, data were collected through an on line questionnaire available to the members of the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU). Between May 2007 and May 2008, voluntary participant urologists collected data on demographic, clinical and pathological characteristics from patients diagnosed with RCC in their practice. RESULTS: Fifty SBU affiliated institutions contributed with patient information to the study. Of the 508 patients, 58.9% were male, 78.9% were white, and the mean age was 59.8 years. Smoking history, high blood pressure and a body mass index above 30 kg/m2 were present in 14.8%, 46.1% and 17.9% of the patients, respectively. Abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography were the main diagnostic methods. The majority of the cases were localized tumors and metastasis were presented in 9.5% of the patients; 98.4% underwent nephrectomy. Clear cell carcinoma was the most common histological type. In comparison with private institutions, stage IV disease was less frequent among patients treated at public health services (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: RCC in Brazil is more common in white men in their sixth decade of life. Ultrasound is the main diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of clear cell carcinoma and we found that localized disease was predominant. A national registry of RCC is feasible and may provide valuable information.