Juliano Moreira : o brasileiro negro que influenciou profundamente a escola de Neurologia no Brasil

Juliano Moreira was a black Brazilian physician, well recognized for his role in the foundation of scientific psychiatry in Brazil; however, little is known about his influences on modern Neurology. Our aim is to highlight Moreira’s importance in the field of Neurology and his role in the development of scientific and medical societies in Brazil. We describe his contributions from his doctoral thesis in 1891 to his 27- year tenure as the director of the National Hospice for the Insane. We also review Moreira’s role in the foundation of societies including the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and the first Brazilian journal dedicated to Neuropsychiatry, concluding that Moreira was one of the most important influential figures for the development of Neurology in Brazil. In addition to his influences on various medical fields, Moreira distinguished himself as an impactful citizen who fought against racist and xenophobic medical theories of his time.Juliano Moreira foi um médico negro brasileiro reconhecido por seu papel na fundação da psiquiatria científica no Brasil; no entanto, pouco sabemos sobre sua influência na Neurologia moderna no país. Nosso objetivo é destacar a importância de Moreira no campo da Neurologia e seu papel no desenvolvimento de sociedades científicas e médicas no Brasil. Descrevemos suas contribuições desde sua tese de doutorado, em 1891, até a sua atuação durante 27 anos como diretor do Hospital Nacional de Alienados. Revisamos também o papel de Moreira na fundação de sociedades como a Academia Brasileira de Ciências, e da primeira revista brasileira dedicada à Neuropsiquiatria, concluindo que Moreira foi um dos mais importantes influenciadores para o desenvolvimento da Neurologia no Brasil. Além de sua ampla influência no campo da medicina, destacou-se como cidadão brasileiro, lutando contra teorias médicas racistas e xenófobas de seu tempo

Disparity in the use of Alzheimer's disease treatment in Southern Brazil

Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment is freely available in the Brazilian public health system. However, the prescription pattern and its associated factors have been poorly studied in our country. We reviewed all granted requests for AD treatment in the public health system in October 2021 in the Rio Grande do Sul (RS) state, Southern Brazil. We performed a spatial autocorrelation analysis with the population-adjusted patients receiving any AD medication as the outcome and correlated it with several socioeconomic variables. 2382 patients with AD were being treated during the period analyzed. The distribution of the outcome variable was not random (Moran's I 0.17562, P <.0001), with the most developed regions having a higher number of patients/100,000 receiving any AD medication. We show that although AD medications are available through the public health system, there is a clear disparity between regions of RS state. Factors related to socioeconomic development partly explain this finding

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used