Background Community‐based primary‐level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of PW‐led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care. Search methods MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019). Selection criteria Randomised trials of PW‐led or collaborative‐care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs. PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non‐health professionals (CPs). Data collection and analysis Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality‐of‐life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects. Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1‐6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post‐intervention. Main results Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs). Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination. Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2. “Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence. Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW‐led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD ‐0.59, 95%CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD ‐0.47, 95%CI ‐0.8 to ‐0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative‐care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little‐or‐no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly red...
BackgroundThe use of HbA1c ≥6.5% for diagnosis of diabetes has been challenged for post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) also known as new onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) due to a low sensitivity early after renal transplantation. PTDM diagnosed with an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is highly predictable for long-term patient mortality. HbA1c was introduced for diagnosis based on the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy. The utility of HbA1c measures versus glucose criteria has not been widely assessed in stable transplant patients but still HbA1c is widely used in this population. The aim of the present analyses was to validate the utility of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) together with HbA1c in diagnosing PTDM in stable renal transplant recipients (RTRs).MethodsOGTT’s were performed one year after transplantation in 494 consecutive RTRs without diabetes. FPG and HbA1c were obtained the same day, before starting the OGTT. Validation was performed using C-statistics and logistic regression analyses.ResultsPTDM was diagnosed in 51 patients (10.3%) by glucose criteria, 38 (74%) patients were diagnosed by FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L [126.1 mg/dl], and 13 (26%) only by 2-h plasma glucose. Six of the latter had HbA1c ≥6.5%. Only seven patients out of the 51 (13.7%) PTDM patients remained undiagnosed when HbA1c ≥6.5% was used together with FPG, and five of these regressed to normal after a median follow-up of 14 months. ROC curves including FPG and HbA1c versus OGTT derived criteria revealed an AUC of 0.858.ConclusionsCombining standard diagnostic FPG and HbA1c criteria captured almost all patients with persistent PTDM in stable RTRs. The combined use of the criteria appears to be an applicable diagnostic strategy for PTDM without the need of an OGTT one year post-transplant.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
BackgroundCardiovascular complications are common in kidney transplant patients and calcification propensity of blood, measured as T50, is associated with cardiovascular outcomes. Paricalcitol supplementation affects calcium/phosphate homeostasis and may affect calcification propensity. To assess this hypothesis we measured T50 in kidney transplant recipients participating in a randomized study comparing paricalcitol versus no treatment during the first year after kidney transplantation.MethodsStored serum samples from 76 kidney transplant recipients (paricalcitol n = 37, no treatment n = 39) were analyzed. Analyses were performed at inclusion (8 weeks after transplantation) and repeated one year after transplantation.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in T50 between the paricalcitol and placebo groups, neither at baseline (p = 0.56) nor at 1 year (p = 0.61). Also, there were no significant changes in T50 over time in either group or when pooling all data (p < 0.20). In multivariate regression analysis, out of 16 potentially relevant covariates, comprising clinical and biochemical parameters, only plasma PTH and T50 at baseline were significantly correlated to T50 after one year. (p < 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively).ConclusionsCalcium propensity measured as T50 score remained unchanged with paricalcitol treatment in kidney transplant recipients, and was not changed over time during the study period of one year.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01694160, registered 23 September 2012.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.