Publications (2)4.54 Total impact
-
Article: Effect of Tight Blood Glucose Control Versus Conventional Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tight control of blood glucose reduces cardiovascular events and total mortality is conflicting. To summarize clinical effects of tight versus conventional glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Knowledge with no limits of language and time. Further trials were searched from the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled comparing different levels of blood glucose control intensity in type 2 diabetic patients. Two independent reviewers extracted data of eligible studies using standard case report forms. We investigated total mortality, cardiovascular and microvascular events, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. We used random-effects models to obtain relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included 6 trials involving 27,654 patients. There was no significant effect of tight blood glucose control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.90-1.17) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Tight glucose control reduced the risk for nonfatal MI (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.95), although had no effect on the incidence of nonfatal stroke (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88-1.17). For microvascular events, tight glucose control reduced the risk progression of retinopathy (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.91), incidence of peripheral neuropathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99), and progression of nephropathy (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.80), but had not significant effect on the incidence of nephropathy (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.42-1.14). The risk of severe hypoglycemia increased with tight glucose control (RR 2.39; 95% CI 1.79-3.18). Tight blood glucose control reduces the risk for some macrovascular and microvascular events, without effect on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Tight glucose control increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia.Cardiovascular Therapeutics 12/2011; · 2.35 Impact Factor -
Article: [Analysis of cost-effectiveness of simvastatin versus atorvastatin in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events within the Brazilian public healthcare system].
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to perform an economic evaluation analyzing the treatment with atorvastatin and simvastatin in comparison to placebo treatment, within the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) scenario, for patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease; analyzing if the additional cost related to statin treatment is justified by the clinical benefits expected, in terms of cardiovascular event and mortality reduction. Cardiovascular event risk and mortality risk were used as outcomes. Statin efficacy at LDL-c and cardiovascular events levels lowering data was obtained from a systematic review of literature. A decision analytic model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing atorvastatin 10mg/day and simvastatin 40 mg/day to placebo treatment in patients with dyslipidemia in Brazil. The target population of this study was a hypothetic cohort of men and women with a mean age of 50 years old and high risk of cardiovascular disease. The model includes only direct costs obtained from Ambulatory and Hospital Information System and Price Database of Brazilian Ministry of Health. The comparative cost-effectiveness analysis itself was done through Excel spreadsheets covering a 5 -years time horizon. The result shows that atorvastatin 10mg/day in comparison to placebo has higher cost with higher effectiveness in the time horizon of 5 years (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio of R$ 433.065,05 per life year gained). In this scenario atorvastatin is not cost effective in comparison to placebo. The simvastatin 40 mg/day appears to be a strategy with lower cost and higher effectiveness in comparison to placebo, in the time horizon analyzed (5 years). In the multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis, simvastatin showed 53% of the results in the quadrant with greater effectiveness and lower cost. This study is an important tool for public decision makers. The study can be used in the decision process of increasing cardiovascular disease treatment access with budgetary sustainability for Ministry of Health. In comparison to placebo, the results show that sinvastatin is a cost saving strategy while atorvastatin is not cost effective.Value in Health 14(5 Suppl 1):S29-32. · 2.19 Impact Factor
