Search

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology / Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia is the property of Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia 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: Atopic dermatitis (AD) negatively affects quality of life and places a substantial financial burden on health care systems due to treatment costs and increased demand for services. Objective: To estimate the worldwide prevalence of AD, the proportion of severe cases worldwide and explore sources of heterogeneity. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Index Medicus from January 2012 up until August 30, 2022. We included primary prevalence studies published from 2012 onward. Study selection was conducted by two reviewers independently. One reviewer performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies, with independent checking by a second reviewer. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool results; subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate potential modifiers. Certainty of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Main outcomes were point prevalence and proportion of severe cases. Results: We identified 12,774 unique references and assessed 1029 full texts, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of 310 studies with 25.5 million individuals. Point prevalence was 11.1% (95% CI 9.4-13.1; 123 studies; 12,776,910 individuals; moderate certainty of evidence) in children and adolescents, and 6.3% (95% CI 5.0-7.8; 59 studies; 12,794,260 individuals; moderate certainty of evidence) in adults. Relatively similar results were observed for studies with low risk of bias. Proportion of severe cases varied from 1.9 to 7.2% in children and adolescents and 2.8% to 15.6% in adults. Conclusions: These findings may underpin effective health care policies, research initiatives, and clinical decision-making.

Background: Shift work is associated with insufficient sleep, which can compromise worker alertness with ultimate effects on occupational health and safety. Adapting shift work schedules may reduce adverse occupational outcomes., Objectives: To assess the effects of shift schedule adaptation on sleep quality, sleep duration, and sleepiness among shift workers., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and eight other databases on 13 December 2020, and again on 20 April 2022, applying no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, including controlled before-after (CBA) trials, interrupted time series, and cross-over trials. Eligible trials evaluated any of the following shift schedule components. • Permanency of shifts • Regularity of shift changes • Direction of shift rotation • Speed of rotation • Shift duration • Timing of start of shifts • Distribution of shift schedule • Time off between shifts • Split shifts • Protected sleep • Worker participation We included studies that assessed sleep quality off-shift, sleep duration off-shift, or sleepiness during shifts., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the records recovered by the search, read through the full-text articles of potentially eligible studies, and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with specific additional domains for non-randomised and cluster-randomised studies. For all stages, we resolved any disagreements by consulting a third review author. We presented the results by study design and combined clinically homogeneous studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE., Main Results: We included 11 studies with a total of 2125 participants. One study was conducted in a laboratory setting and was not considered for drawing conclusions on intervention effects. The included studies investigated different and often multiple changes to shift schedule, and were heterogeneous with respect to outcome measurement. Forward versus backward rotation Three CBA trials (561 participants) investigated the effects of forward rotation versus backward rotation. Only one CBA trial provided sufficient data for the quantitative analysis; it provided very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation compared with backward rotation did not affect sleep quality measured with the Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire (BNSQ; mean difference (MD) -0.20 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to 1.89; 62 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (MD -0.21 hours, 95% CI -3.29 to 2.88; 62 participants). However, there was also very low-certainty evidence that forward rotation reduced sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Faster versus slower rotation Two CBA trials and one non-randomised cross-over trial (341 participants) evaluated faster versus slower shift rotation. We were able to meta-analyse data from two studies. There was low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality off-shift (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.23) and very low-certainty evidence that faster shift rotation reduced sleep duration off-shift (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; 2 studies, 282 participants). The SMD for sleep duration translated to an MD of 0.38 hours' less sleep per day (95% CI -0.74 to -0.01). One study provided very low-certainty evidence that faster rotations decreased sleepiness during shifts measured with the BNSQ (MD -1.24 points, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.24; 62 participants). Limited shift duration (16 hours) versus unlimited shift duration Two RCTs (760 participants) evaluated 80-hour workweeks with maximum daily shift duration of 16 hours versus workweeks without any daily shift duration limits. There was low-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit increased sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.78; which translated to an MD of 0.73 hours' more sleep per day, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 760 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence that the 16-hour limit reduced sleepiness during shifts, measured with the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; which translated to an MD of 0.37 fewer points, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 716 participants). Shorter versus longer shifts One RCT, one CBA trial, and one non-randomised cross-over trial (692 participants) evaluated shorter shift duration (eight to 10 hours) versus longer shift duration (two to three hours longer). There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in sleep quality (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.15; which translated to an MD of 0.13 points lower on a scale of 1 to 5; 2 studies, 111 participants) or sleep duration off-shift (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.54; which translated to an MD of 0.26 hours' less sleep per day; 2 studies, 121 participants). The RCT and the non-randomised cross-over study found that shorter shifts reduced sleepiness during shifts, while the CBA study found no effect on sleepiness. More compressed versus more spread out shift schedules One RCT and one CBA trial (346 participants) evaluated more compressed versus more spread out shift schedules. The CBA trial provided very low-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in sleep quality off-shift (MD 0.31 points, 95% CI -0.53 to 1.15) and sleep duration off-shift (MD 0.52 hours, 95% CI -0.52 to 1.56)., Authors' Conclusions: Forward and faster rotation may reduce sleepiness during shifts, and may make no difference to sleep quality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Very low-certainty evidence indicated that sleep duration off-shift decreases with faster rotation. Low-certainty evidence indicated that on-duty workweeks with shift duration limited to 16 hours increases sleep duration, with moderate-certainty evidence for minimal reductions in sleepiness. Changes in shift duration and compression of workweeks had no effect on sleep or sleepiness, but the evidence was of very low-certainty. No evidence is available for other shift schedule changes. There is a need for more high-quality studies (preferably RCTs) for all shift schedule interventions to draw conclusions on the effects of shift schedule adaptations on sleep and sleepiness in shift workers., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent chronic disease, associated with morbidity and mortality. Although effective treatment for OSA is commercially available, their provision is not guaranteed by lines of care throughout Brazil, making legal action necessary. This study aimed at presenting data related to the volume of legal proceedings regarding the access to diagnosis and treatment of OSA in Brazil., Methods: This was a descriptive study of national scope, evaluating the period between January of 2016 and December of 2020. The number of lawsuits was analyzed according to the object of the demand (diagnosis or treatment). Projections of total expenses were carried out according to the number of lawsuits., Results: We identified 1,462 legal proceedings (17.6% and 82.4% related to diagnosis and treatment, respectively). The projection of expenditure for OSA diagnosis in the public and private spheres were R$575,227 and R$188,002, respectively. The projection of expenditure for OSA treatment in the public and private spheres were R$2,656,696 and R$253,050, respectively. There was a reduction in the number of lawsuits between 2017 and 2019., Conclusions: Legal action as a strategy for accessing diagnostic and therapeutic resources related to OSA is a recurrent practice, resulting in inefficiency and inequity. The reduction in the number of lawsuits between 2017 and 2019 might be explained by the expansion of local health care policies or by barriers in the journey of patients with OSA, such as difficulties in being referred to specialized health care and low availability of diagnostic resources.