DAGOBERTO CALLEGARO
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
LIM/45 - Laboratório de Fisiopatologia Neurocirúrgica, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/62 - Laboratório de Fisiopatologia Cirúrgica, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/45 - Laboratório de Fisiopatologia Neurocirúrgica, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/62 - Laboratório de Fisiopatologia Cirúrgica, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
3 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- Is there a role for off-label high-efficacy disease-modifying drugs in progressive multiple sclerosis? A network meta-analysis(2022) SILVA, Guilherme Diogo; CASTRILLO, Bruno Batitucci; APOSTOLOS-PEREIRA, Samira Luisa; CALLEGARO, DagobertoOcrelizumab and siponimod are the two on-label drugs used for progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (PMS). However, many patients with PMS do not have access to these high-efficacy disease-modifying drugs (DMDs). Off-label prescription of other high-efficacy DMDs (fingolimod, rituximab and natalizumab) may be a strategy to improve access to immunotherapy for these patients. We aim to compare on-label and off-label high-efficacy drugs for their effect on disability progression in PMS. In December 2021, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central and Scopus databases for randomized clinical trials involving patients with PMS. High-efficacy drugs were considered as intervention and placebos as comparison. The outcome contemplated was risk of Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS) progression at 2 years. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the relative risk of EDSS progression at 2 years compared with placebo in on-label and off-label drugs. We included five studies with 4526 patients. The median EDSS progression at 2 years in patients that received any immunotherapy was 30%, compared with 35% in placebo groups. Overall, the risk of bias of individual studies was low. Network analysis revealed overlapping confidence intervals in off-label drugs (CI95% 0.51-2.16) versus ocrelizumab (reference) and off-label drugs (CI 95% 0.53-1.96) versus siponimod (reference), suggesting similar efficacy. The same result was found even after excluding studies with the risk of publication bias. Off-label high efficacy immunotherapy in PMS has biological plausibility and presented similar effectiveness to on-label DMDs in this network meta-analysis. The use of fingolimod, rituximab or natalizumab may be a strategy that reduces costs and improves access to immunotherapy for patients with PMS.
- Cost, efficacy, and safety comparison between early intensive and escalating strategies for multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis(2023) PIPEK, Leonardo Zumerkorn; MAHLER, Joao Vitor; NASCIMENTO, Rafaela Farias Vidigal; APOSTOLOS-PEREIRA, Samira Luisa; SILVA, Guilherme Diogo; CALLEGARO, DagobertoBackground: The optimal treatment strategy of multiple sclerosis (MS) is a matter of debate. The classical approach is the escalating (ESC) strategy, which consists of starting with low-to moderate-efficacy disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and upscale to high-efficacy DMDs when noting some evidence of active disease. Another approach, the early intensive (EIT) strategy, is starting with high-efficiency DMDs as first-line therapy. Our goal was to compare effectiveness, safety, and cost of ESC and EIT strategies.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS until September 2022, for studies comparing EIT and ESC strategies in adult participants with relapsing-remitting MS and a minimum follow-up of 5 years. We examined the Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS), the proportion of severe adverse events, and cost in a 5-year period. Random-effects meta-analysis summarized the efficacy and safety and an EDSS-based Markov model estimated the cost.Results: Seven studies with 3,467 participants showed a 30% reduction in EDSS worsening in 5 years (RR 0.7; [0.59-0.83]; p < 0.001) in the EIT group vs in the ESC group. Two studies with 1,118 participants suggested a similar safety profile for these strategies (RR 1.92; [0.38-9.72]; p = 0.4324). EIT with natalizumab in extended interval dosing, rituximab, alemtuzumab, and cladribine demonstrated cost-effectiveness in our model.Discussion: EIT presents higher efficacy in preventing disability progression, a similar safety profile, and can be cost-effective within a 5-year timeline.
- Vitamin D3 as an add-on treatment for multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(2024) MAHLER, Joao Vitor; SOLTI, Marina; APOSTOLS-PEREIRA, Samira Luisa; ADONI, Tarso; SILVA, Guilherme Diogo; CALLEGARO, DagobertoBackground: Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a higher risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) and disease progression. However, the efficacy of vitamin D3 as an adjuvant therapy for MS remains a controversial topic. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of adjunct high-dose vitamin D3 on clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for trials published until December 18th, 2022. Authors independently selected randomized controlled trials involving patients with MS, with an intervention group receiving high dose (>= 1000 IU/day) cholecalciferol and reporting clinical or radiological outcomes. Authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using a standardized, pilot-tested form. The meta-analysis was conducted using RStudio for EDSS at the last follow-up, ARR, and new T2 lesion count. Results: We included 9 studies with 867 participants. No significant reduction of EDSS (MD = 0.02, CI 95 % [-0.37; 0.41], p = 0.91), ARR (MD -0.03, CI 95 % [-0.08; 0.02], p = 0.26), or new T2 lesions (MD -0.59, CI 95 % [-1.24;0.07], p = 0.08) was observed at 6-24 months. We found no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis strengthen current evidence that vitamin D3 supplementation has no significant impact on clinical outcomes in patients with MS. However, the non-significant reduction of new T2 lesions could precede long-term clinical benefits and should be validated in additional studies.