Search

Objectives: This review of systematic reviews evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs in the management of postoperative pain, edema, and trismus in oral surgery. Materials and methods: The databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library, up to March 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and rated their methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: All of the 19 studies reviewed had at least two critical methodological flaws. Third molar surgery was the most common procedure (n = 15) and the oral route the most frequent approach (n = 14). The use of betamethasone (10, 20, and 60 mg), dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg), methylprednisolone (16, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 125 mg), and prednisolone (10 and 20 mg) by different routes and likewise of celecoxib (200 mg), diclofenac (25, 30, 50, 75, and 100 mg), etoricoxib (120 mg), ibuprofen (400 and 600 mg), ketorolac (30 mg), meloxicam (7.5, 10, and 15 mg), nimesulide (100 mg), and rofecoxib (50 mg) administered by oral, intramuscular, and intravenous routes were found to reduce pain, edema, and trismus in patients undergoing third molar surgery. Data on adverse effects were poorly reported. Conclusion: Further randomized clinical trials should be conducted to confirm these findings, given the wide variety of drugs, doses, and routes of administration used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas is the property of Revista Brasileira de Politicas Publicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The social restrictions among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have posed a thoughtful risk to mental health and have implications in the use of drugs, including antidepressants, anxiolytics and other psychotropics. Objective: This study analyzed the sales data of the psychotropics prescribed in Brazil, in order to verify the change in consumption trends of these drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This interrupted time-series analyzed psychotropic sales data, between January 2014 and July 2021, using the National System of Controlled Products Management from The Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency. The monthly mean DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day of psychotropic drugs was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett Multiple Comparisons Test. The changes in monthly trends in the use of the psychotropic studied were evaluated by Joinpoint regression. Results: During the period studied, clonazepam, alprazolam, zolpidem and escitalopram were the most sold psychotropic drugs in Brazil. According to Joinpoint regression, an upward trend was observed in sales during the pandemic of pregabalin, escitalopram, lithium, desvenlafaxine, citalopram, buproprion and amitriptyline. An increase in psychotropic consumption was noted throughout the pandemic period, with the maximum consumption (2.61 DDDs) occurring in April 2021, with a downward trend in consumption that accompanied the drop in the number of deaths. Conclusions: The increase in sales, mainly of antidepressants during the COVID-19 pandemic, draws attention to issues related to the mental health of the Brazilian population and on the need for greater monitoring in the dispensing of these drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the antimicrobial resistance in microorganisms present in periodontal diseases. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE (PubMed/Ovid), EMBASE, BVS, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 2011 to December 2021 for observational studies which evaluated the antimicrobial resistance in periodontal diseases in permanent dentition. Studies that allowed the antimicrobial consumption until the time of sample collection, studies that used laboratory acquired strains, studies that only characterized the microbial strain present, assessment of cellular morphological changes, sequencing system validation, and time series were excluded. Six reviewers, working in pairs and independently, selected titles, abstracts, and full texts extracting data from all studies that met the eligibility criteria: characteristics of patients, diagnosis of infection, microbial species assessed, antimicrobial assessed, identification of resistance genes, and virulence factors. "The Joanna Briggs Institute" critical appraisal for case series was adapted to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Results: Twenty-four studies (N = 2.039 patients) were included. Prevotella and Porphyromonas species were the most cited microorganisms in the included studies, and the virulence factors were related to Staphylococcus aureus. The antimicrobial reported with the highest frequency of resistance in the included studies was ampicillin (39.5%) and ciprofloxacin showed the lowest frequency of resistance (3.4%). The most cited genes were related to macrolides. The quality of the included studies was considered critically low. Conclusion: No evidence was found regarding the profile of antimicrobial resistance in periodontal diseases, requiring further research that should focus on regional population studies to address this issue in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance. Clinical relevance: The knowledge about the present microorganism in periodontal diseases and their respective antimicrobial resistance profiles should guide dentists in prescribing complementary therapy for these infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Identify and critically evaluate systematic reviews addressing the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medication to older patients. METHODS: This is an overview of systematic reviews. The studies were searched and selected from Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Virtual Health Library, and Web of Science databases, combining the terms aged, prescriptions, inappropriate prescribing and potentially inappropriate medication list with their entry terms and other related descriptors, published by June 2017. This study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that addressed the effectiveness of any intervention or combined interventions to reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medications to older patients, without restriction in terms of design, language or date of publication of primary studies. AMSTAR - A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews - was used to evaluate the methodological quality of selected systematic reviews. Study selection and the methodological quality evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators, who resolved any divergence by consensus. The main findings were grouped into thematic categories, defined after a content analysis and discussed qualitatively as narrative synthesis. RESULTS: This study analyzed 24 systematic reviews. In terms of study design and methodological quality evaluation, most were systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials and studies of moderate quality, respectively. The interventions were analyzed in five thematic categories: medication review services, pharmaceutical interventions, computerized systems, educational interventions, and others. The interventions analyzed showed good results and most of them helped reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medication to older patients. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic reviews included in this overview showed potential benefits of different interventions. However, it was not possible to determine the most effective intervention. Combined interventions are likely to provide better results than isolated interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]