Efficacy of Mobile Apps to Support the Care of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background- Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease that is considered a global public health problem. Education and self-monitoring by diabetic patients help to optimize and make possible a satisfactory metabolic control enabling improved management and reduced morbidity and mortality. The global growth in the use of mobile phones makes them a powerful platform to help provide tailored health, delivered conveniently to patients through health applications (apps). Objective- Evaluate the efficacy of mobile apps through a systematic review and meta-analysis to assist diabetes mellitus patients in treatment. Methods- We conducted searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE (Pubmed), CENTRAL/ Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS, manual search in references of publications included, systematic reviews, specialized journals and gray literature. We considered eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted after 2008 with participants of all ages, diabetes mellitus patients and users of apps to help manage the disease. The meta-analysis of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was performed in Review Manager Software 5.3. Results- The literature search identified 1236 publications. From these, 13 studies were included that evaluated 1263 patients. In six RCTs, there were a statistical significant reduction (P < 0.05) of HbA1c at the end of studies in the intervention group. The HbA1c data were evaluated by meta-analysis with the following results (MD = - .44; CI: - .59, - .29; P < .10; I² = 32%).The evaluation favored the treatment in patients who used apps without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions - The use of apps by diabetic patients could help improve the control of HbA1c. In addition, the apps seem to strengthen the perception of self-care contributing better information and health education to patients. Patients also become more self-confident to deal with their diabetes, mainly, by reducing fear of not knowing how to deal with potential hypoglycemic episodes that may occur

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5- Fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens or compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with concurrent or non concurrent observational cohort studies to guide the authorities and judiciary. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures include OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated. Results: 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities, and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies. Conclusion: The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation that need to be considered