The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of amfepramone, fenproporex and mazindol as a monotherapy for the treatment of obese or overweight patients. A systematic review of primary studies was conducted, followed by a direct meta-analysis (random effect) and mixed treatment comparison. Medline and other databases were searched. Heterogeneity was explored through I2 associated with a p-value. Of 739 identified publications, 25 were included in the meta-analysis. The global evaluation of Cochrane resulted in 19 studies with a high level of bias and six with unclear risk. Due to the lack of information in primary studies, direct meta-analyses were conducted only for amfepramone and mazindol. Compared to placebo, amfepramone resulted in higher weight loss in the short-term (<180 days; mean difference (MD) -1.281 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.379) and long-term (≥180 days; MD -6.518 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.0%; p=0.719). Only studies with long-term follow up reported efficacy in terms of abdominal circumference and 5-10% weight reduction. These results corroborated the finding that the efficacy of amfepramone is greater than that of placebo. Treatment with mazindol showed greater short-term weight loss than that with placebo (MD -1.721 kg; p<0.05; I2: 0.9%; p=0.388). However, metabolic outcomes were poorly described, preventing a meta-analysis. A mixed treatment comparison corroborated the direct meta-analysis. Considering the high level of risk of bias and the absence of important published outcomes for anti-obesity therapy assessments, this study found that the evaluated drugs showed poor evidence of efficacy in the treatment of overweight and obese patients. Robust safety data were not identified to suggest changes in their regulatory status.

Resumo A farmacoterapia antiobesidade ainda é alvo de amplo debate científico e político; não por acaso, já que há pouca confiabilidade tanto no âmbito dos estudos primários quanto no dos secundários, seja pelo reduzido tamanho amostral, seja pela elevada heterogeneidade e/ou pela baixa qualidade metodológica. Por muitos anos, o Brasil foi mencionado como um dos maiores consumidores de inibidores de apetite do mundo, com evidências de uso irracional dessa classe de medicamentos. Portanto, o país foi palco de debate que dividiu a Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) e as sociedades médicas quanto à manutenção do registro de anfepramona (dietilpropiona), mazindol e femproporex. Nesse contexto, o presente comentário apresenta novos argumentos para essa discussão e ainda recomendações para estudos futuros.

Summary Antiobesity pharmacotherapy remains the main point of disagreement among both scientists and regulators. This is probably due to small sample sizes, high levels of heterogeneity, and low methodological quality. For many years, Brazil was one of the largest consumers of appetite suppressants worldwide, with evidence of irrational use of this drug class. Therefore, the country was the scene of a debate that divided the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) and medical societies over the maintenance record of diethylpropion, mazindol and fenproporex. In this context, this commentary presents new arguments to contribute to the discussion, as well as recommendations for future studies.

Abstract There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.

Conduziu-se uma revisão sistemática e metaanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados em pacientes com psoríase moderada a grave, tratados com biológicos ou placebo por 10 a 14 semanas. Foram incluídos 41 estudos, com escore de Jadad médio de 4,4, totalizando 15.586 pacientes. Para os desfechos de eficácia PASI 50, 75 e 90 os resultados não são conclusivos para definir qual é o melhor agente biológico no curto prazo. Não houve diferença estatística entre placebo e biológicos para ocorrência de infecções e eventos ad-versos sérios. Ustequinumabe 45mg foi o biológico com menor ocorrência de descontinuação por conta de eventos adversos. Baseado na evidência até então disponível, não é possível determinar qual agente biológico é o melhor para se atingir resposta PASI 50, 75 e 90 após 10-14 semanas de tratamento. Para o mesmo intervalo, a segurança global parece ser a mesma para todos os biológicos e ustequinumabe 45mg o tratamento melhor tolerado. Para melhor compreender a eficácia e segurança, meta-análise indireta comparando droga-a-droga são necessárias já que ensaios clínicos randomizados podem não ser viáveis.

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.

Se realizó una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos controlados aleatorios en pacientes con psoriasis moderada a severa tratados con biológicos o placebo por 10-14 semanas. Se incluyeron 41 estudios con una puntuación de Jadad de 4,4, un total de 15.586 pacientes. Para variables de eficacia PASI 50, 75 y 90, los resultados no son concluyentes para definir cuál es el mejor agente biológico en el corto plazo. No hubo diferencia estadística entre el placebo y la ocurrencia biológica de las infecciones y los eventos adversos graves. Ustequinumabe 45mg fue el biológico con una menor incidencia de la interrupción debido a eventos adversos. Basado en la evidencia disponible hasta el momento, no es posible determinar qué agente biológico es lograr la mejor respuesta PASI 50, 75 y 90 después de 10-14 semanas de tratamiento. Para el mismo período, la seguridad global parece ser el mismo para todos los tratamientos y ustequinumabe 45mg el mejor tolerado. Para comprender mejor la eficacia y seguridad, es necesario un metaanálisis indirecto comparando medicamento a medicamento.

Conduziu-se uma revisão sistemática e metaanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados em pacientes com psoríase moderada a grave, tratados com biológicos ou placebo por 10 a 14 semanas. Foram incluídos 41 estudos, com escore de Jadad médio de 4,4, totalizando 15.586 pacientes. Para os desfechos de eficácia PASI 50, 75 e 90 os resultados não são conclusivos para definir qual é o melhor agente biológico no curto prazo. Não houve diferença estatística entre placebo e biológicos para ocorrência de infecções e eventos ad-versos sérios. Ustequinumabe 45mg foi o biológico com menor ocorrência de descontinuação por conta de eventos adversos. Baseado na evidência até então disponível, não é possível determinar qual agente biológico é o melhor para se atingir resposta PASI 50, 75 e 90 após 10-14 semanas de tratamento. Para o mesmo intervalo, a segurança global parece ser a mesma para todos os biológicos e ustequinumabe 45mg o tratamento melhor tolerado. Para melhor compreender a eficácia e segurança, meta-análise indireta comparando droga-a-droga são necessárias já que ensaios clínicos randomizados podem não ser viáveis.

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with biological agents, with a follow-up of 10-14 weeks. Overall, 41 studies, with mean Jadad score of 4.4, and 15,586 patients were included. For the efficacy outcomes PASI 50, 75 and 90 our findings are not conclusive to point what biological agent has the greatest response in short term follow-up. There were no statistical differences between placebo and biologics for the occurrence of infections and serious adverse events. Ustekinumab 45mg showed lower withdrawal due to adverse events compared with the placebo. Based on data available up to now, it is not possible to determine which biological agent is the best for PASI 50, 75 or 90 after 10-14 weeks of treatment. At the same follow-up, overall safety seems to be the same for all biological agents and Ustekinumab 45mg the most well tolerated drug. To better understand efficacy and safety, indirect meta-analysis comparing drug-to-drug is required since randomized placebo-controlled trials may not be feasible.

Se realizó una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de ensayos controlados aleatorios en pacientes con psoriasis moderada a severa tratados con biológicos o placebo por 10-14 semanas. Se incluyeron 41 estudios con una puntuación de Jadad de 4,4, un total de 15.586 pacientes. Para variables de eficacia PASI 50, 75 y 90, los resultados no son concluyentes para definir cuál es el mejor agente biológico en el corto plazo. No hubo diferencia estadística entre el placebo y la ocurrencia biológica de las infecciones y los eventos adversos graves. Ustequinumabe 45mg fue el biológico con una menor incidencia de la interrupción debido a eventos adversos. Basado en la evidencia disponible hasta el momento, no es posible determinar qué agente biológico es lograr la mejor respuesta PASI 50, 75 y 90 después de 10-14 semanas de tratamiento. Para el mismo período, la seguridad global parece ser el mismo para todos los tratamientos y ustequinumabe 45mg el mejor tolerado. Para comprender mejor la eficacia y seguridad, es necesario un metaanálisis indirecto comparando medicamento a medicamento.