Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049

Uso de medicinas alternativas e complementares por pacientes com câncer: revisão sistemática Use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients: systematic review

O interesse no tema das medicinas alternativas e complementares tem aumentado, principalmente entre pacientes oncológicos. Realizou-se uma revisão sistemática da literatura na base de dados PubMed sobre o perfil dos pacientes que optam pelo uso dessas medicinas e suas motivações. As palavras-chaves utilizadas na busca foram "cancer and complementary alternative medicine" e "oncology and complementary alternative medicine", no período 1995-2005. Os critérios de seleção foram: presença dos descritores no título dos artigos, idiomas português, inglês ou espanhol e terem sido realizados em população adulta. A partir de 43 artigos analisados, concluiu-se que a utilização de medicinas alternativas e complementares é parte do escopo social desses pacientes. Seu uso é importante na construção da identidade de pacientes com câncer, ajudando-os nas decisões em relação ao tratamento convencional.<br>Interest in complementary and alternative medicine has increased, especially among oncology patients. A systematic literature review of the profile of patients who choose to use this type of medicine, as well as their motivations, was carried out on the PubMed database. For this search, the key words used were ?cancer and complementary alternative medicine? and ?oncology and complementary alternative medicine?, covering the period between 1995 and 2005. The selection criteria were the following: key words were present in the article title; article was written in either English, Portuguese, or Spanish; and study was performed with an adult population. From the 43 articles analyzed, it could be concluded that the use of complementary and alternative medicine is part of these patients? social scope. Moreover, its use plays an important role in the identity construction of cancer patients, helping them to make decisions related to conventional treatment

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required