PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Practice Guidelines as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 451 records · Page 25Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

How frequent are asthma exacerbations in a pediatric primary care setting and do written asthma action plans help in their management?

PURPOSE: In the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma, the expert panel recommends that a written asthma action plan be provided for all patients with asthma. Studies evaluating the usefulness of the asthma action plan in children are limited. We aim to determine exacerbation frequency and usefulness of the asthma action plan in managing exacerbations that occur in a pediatric primary care setting. METHODS: Caretakers of asthmatic children attending the general pediatric clinic in an inner-city hospital completed a one-page questionnaire covering topics such as asthma severity, frequency of exacerbations, and possession/usefulness of an asthma action plan. Although controversy exists over the definition of yellow and red zone exacerbations, we defined the yellow zone as symptoms that require albuterol more than three times a day or more than two nights in succession. The red zone was defined as symptoms requiring systemic corticosteroids and/or an urgent physician visit. RESULTS: Seventy of 75 subjects completed the survey. Almost 80% of respondents carried the diagnosis of persistent asthma, whereas the remainder had intermittent asthma. Exacerbation frequency over a 3-month period was determined. Approximately 80% of children experienced at least one yellow zone episode: 42% had one or two yellow zone episodes, and 39.6% had between three and five episodes. Sixty-three percent of patients did not experience a single red zone exacerbation. Almost 75% (44 of 59) of subjects possessed an asthma action plan. Ninety percent (37 of 41) of respondents with action plans found the plan to be useful in managing exacerbations. CONCLUSION: Approximately four of every five asthmatic children seen in this primary care setting experienced a yellow zone exacerbation at least once during a 3-month period. One third experienced at least one red zone episode. Nine of every 10 caretakers with an action plan reported the asthma action plan to be of value in managing exacerbations.

Anti-Asthmatic Agents↗
PubMed2005

Knowledge of risk factors and guidelines for the management of asthma. The educational role of the nurse.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the level of knowledge concerning risk factors for the development of asthma and worsening of the course of the disease among patients, as well as achieving a better understanding of the educational role of the nurse in improving the quality of life of patients suffering from the disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a questionnaire study involving 100 patients suffering from asthma. 59 of them were diagnosed as having an allergic and 41 a nonallergic asthma. In the main they were patients suffering from moderate to severe asthma, who had attended the outpatient allergology clinic for many years. RESULTS: Analysis of the results obtained demonstrated the significant effects of asthma for the lives and health of the patients questioned. This was reflected in the high number of people registered as unable to work and receiving invalidity benefits, and influenced the activity of the majority patients in various spheres of life. A number of respondents demonstrated poor knowledge of the risk factors for asthma and ways of eliminating the illness. The majority of patients had a good knowledge of the names, doses and ways in which they should take their prescribed medication as well as showing an understanding of the principles of taking additional medicines as necessary. Their knowledge of the principles of anti-inflammatory treatment, which is a basic factor in the treatment of patients with asthma was, however very poor. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients suffering from asthma there is a great need for health information. The majority of respondents expressed a willingness to take part in training sessions to be run by nursing staff. The focus of these educational sessions should be on improving the patients' knowledge about asthma as a chronic inflammatory disease, helping to eliminate and limit risk factors for the disease, treatment principles and avoiding the side-effects of prescribed medication.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Heart failure management programmes in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The ESC guidelines recommend that an organised system of specialist heart failure (HF) care should be established to improve outcomes of HF patients. The aim of this study was therefore to identify the number and the content of HF management programmes in Europe. METHOD: A two-phase descriptive study was conducted: an initial screening to identify the existence of HF management programmes; and a survey to describe the content in countries where at least 30% of the hospitals had a programme. RESULTS: Of the 43 European countries approached, 26 (60%) estimated the percentage of HF management programmes. Seven countries reported that they had such programmes in more than 30% of their hospitals. Of the 673 hospitals responding to the questionnaire, 426 (63%) had a HF management programme. Half of the programmes (n = 205) were located in an outpatient clinic. In the UK a combination of hospital and home-based programmes was common (75%). The most programmes included physical examination, telephone consultation, patient education, drug titration and diagnostic testing. Most (89%) programmes involved nurses and physicians. Multi-disciplinary teams were active in 56% of the HF programmes. The most prominent differences between the 7 countries were the degree of collaboration with home care and GP's, the role in palliative care and the funding. CONCLUSION: Only a few European countries have a large number of organised programmes for HF care and follow up. To improve outcomes of HF patients throughout Europe more effort should be taken to increase the number of these programmes in all countries.

Aftercare↗
PubMed1999

Follow-up recommendations for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stages I-III malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for follow-up of melanoma patients are not established. In 1987, a follow-up protocol was instituted at the Yale Melanoma Unit to improve upon the detection of disease recurrence in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I-III cutaneous melanoma. The follow-up protocol consists of a patient education program and a surveillance schedule based on stage of disease. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of 373 patients who were seen and followed according to the surveillance protocol in the Yale Melanoma Unit between January 1988 and December 1994 to determine 1) the time interval between the initial visit and recurrence; 2) the most common method of detecting recurrences; 3) whether the surveillance schedule or the patient detects more recurrences, i.e., asymptomatic recurrences versus symptomatic recurrences; 4) whether there is any survival difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic recurrences. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rates for Stage I, II, and III patients were 95%, 72%, and 52%, respectively. Of the 78 recurrences, 44 (56%) were detected by physician-directed surveillance examinations and 34 (44%) by patients. Most recurrences were found within the first (47%) or second (32%) year of follow-up. The estimated 6-month hazard rates for death or recurrence were 0.0044, 0.0088, and 0.0278 for Stage I, II, and III patients, respectively. The group of asymptomatic patients with recurrence had a survival advantage over the symptomatic recurrence group. In addition, patients with locoregional recurrence had better survival than those with distant recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Although many recurrences arise rapidly and are recognized early by patients, in this study more than half were found by surveillance examinations before symptoms were manifest. Based on the hazard ratio for recurrences, the authors recommend the following surveillance schedules in addition to the patient education program for detection of recurrences: 1) Stage I, annually; 2) Stage II, every 6 months for Years 1-2 and annually thereafter; 3) Stage III, every 3 months for Year 1, every 4 months for Year 2, and every 6 months for Years 3-5; 4) at Year 6 and beyond, all patients should have surveillance annually, due to the risk of late recurrence and/or metachronous multiple primaries.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

A new and rapid scoring system to assess the scientific evidence from clinical trials.

Guidelines are based on a scientific analysis from existing data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), registry trials, simple registries, case reports, and the personal experience of the task force members. Furthermore, meta-analyses and subgroup analyses are used to derive the strengths of recommendations. Fortunately, the major cardiac societies, i.e., the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), are essentially using the same definitions for the levels of recommendations. In the expanding field of cardiology, however, the overwhelming and increasing number of clinical studies reveals the limitations of the traditional ranking of these studies: Applying the standard definitions of the ACC/AHA/ESC criteria for the levels of recommendation, almost every PCI procedure would easily reach the level of evidence A, even with two small, underpowered studies and a surrogate endpoint. Although meta-analyses are important tools for creating an overview of major diagnostic or treatment modalities, they are bound to severe limitations. The compilation of several underpowered, small trials can generate a statistically artificial "significant" result. This is especially important because only two meta-analyses containing almost identical studies could easily yield an evidence level A. RCTs are usually designed and conducted according to a power calculation, for which a primary clinical or surrogate endpoint can be chosen. Surrogate endpoints, however, do not necessarily correlate with the clinical outcome. The history of medicine is full of errors introduced by underpowered studies with surrogate endpoints. Many investigators and companies attempt to tease out treatment effects in specific subpopulations of patients. These subgroup analyses are usually underpowered. Another major limitation of the ACC/AHA/ESC scoring system is that neither the power of a study nor the choice of a primary clinical endpoint is included in their definitions. Yet another limitation of the ACC/AHA/ESC grading system is that two "simple" registries may already lead to a level of evidence B. A new scoring system is presented addressing most of these limitations: a primary clinical endpoint receives three points, whereas all of the following receive one point: double-blind design, evaluation interval of primary endpoint > or = 6 months, multicenter (at least three centers), independent data and safety monitoring, power of > or = 80% for primary endpoint achieved, and follow-up > or = 80% for a surrogate primary endpoint or follow-up of > or = 95% for a clinical primary endpoint. Thus, the maximum achievable points is 10. This scoring system can also be applied for high-quality registry controlled trials using a predefined control group and power calculation. For simple registry studies and subgroup analyses, a modified scoring system has been developed (maximum achievable points is 5). The advantage of the suggested new scoring system is its transparency, reproducibility, and ease of use by quickly answering the key quality questions for clinical trials. The new scoring system suggested here should help make decisions regarding which treatment to use and stimulate discussions.

Cardiology↗
PubMed2004

Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines.

The Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) of the National Cholesterol Education Program issued an evidence-based set of guidelines on cholesterol management in 2001. Since the publication of ATP III, 5 major clinical trials of statin therapy with clinical end points have been published. These trials addressed issues that were not examined in previous clinical trials of cholesterol-lowering therapy. The present document reviews the results of these recent trials and assesses their implications for cholesterol management. Therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) remain an essential modality in clinical management. The trials confirm the benefit of cholesterol-lowering therapy in high-risk patients and support the ATP III treatment goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL. They support the inclusion of patients with diabetes in the high-risk category and confirm the benefits of LDL-lowering therapy in these patients. They further confirm that older persons benefit from therapeutic lowering of LDL-C. The major recommendations for modifications to footnote the ATP III treatment algorithm are the following. In high-risk persons, the recommended LDL-C goal is <100 mg/dL, but when risk is very high, an LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL is a therapeutic option, ie, a reasonable clinical strategy, on the basis of available clinical trial evidence. This therapeutic option extends also to patients at very high risk who have a baseline LDL-C < 100 mg/dL. Moreover, when a high-risk patient has high triglycerides or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), consideration can be given to combining a fibrate or nicotinic acid with an LDL-lowering drug. For moderately high-risk persons (2+ risk factors and 10-year risk 10% to 20%), the recommended LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL, but an LDL-C goal <100 mg/dL is a therapeutic option on the basis of recent trial evidence. The latter option extends also to moderately high-risk persons with a baseline LDL-C of 100 to 129 mg/dL. When LDL-lowering drug therapy is employed in high-risk or moderately high-risk persons, it is advised that intensity of therapy be sufficient to achieve at least a 30% to 40% reduction in LDL-C levels. Moreover, any person at high risk or moderately high risk who has lifestyle-related risk factors (eg, obesity, physical inactivity, elevated triglycerides, low HDL-C, or metabolic syndrome) is a candidate for TLC to modify these risk factors regardless of LDL-C level. Finally, for people in lower-risk categories, recent clinical trials do not modify the goals and cutpoints of therapy.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines.

The Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) of the National Cholesterol Education Program issued an evidence-based set of guidelines on cholesterol management in 2001. Since the publication of ATP III, 5 major clinical trials of statin therapy with clinical end points have been published. These trials addressed issues that were not examined in previous clinical trials of cholesterol-lowering therapy. The present document reviews the results of these recent trials and assesses their implications for cholesterol management. Therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) remain an essential modality in clinical management. The trials confirm the benefit of cholesterol-lowering therapy in high-risk patients and support the ATP III treatment goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL. They support the inclusion of patients with diabetes in the high-risk category and confirm the benefits of LDL-lowering therapy in these patients. They further confirm that older persons benefit from therapeutic lowering of LDL-C. The major recommendations for modifications to footnote the ATP III treatment algorithm are the following. In high-risk persons, the recommended LDL-C goal is <100 mg/dL, but when risk is very high, an LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL is a therapeutic option, ie, a reasonable clinical strategy, on the basis of available clinical trial evidence. This therapeutic option extends also to patients at very high risk who have a baseline LDL-C <100 mg/dL. Moreover, when a high-risk patient has high triglycerides or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), consideration can be given to combining a fibrate or nicotinic acid with an LDL-lowering drug. For moderately high-risk persons (2+ risk factors and 10-year risk 10% to 20%), the recommended LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL, but an LDL-C goal <100 mg/dL is a therapeutic option on the basis of recent trial evidence. The latter option extends also to moderately high-risk persons with a baseline LDL-C of 100 to 129 mg/dL. When LDL-lowering drug therapy is employed in high-risk or moderately high-risk persons, it is advised that intensity of therapy be sufficient to achieve at least a 30% to 40% reduction in LDL-C levels. Moreover, any person at high risk or moderately high risk who has lifestyle-related risk factors (eg, obesity, physical inactivity, elevated triglycerides, low HDL-C, or metabolic syndrome) is a candidate for TLC to modify these risk factors regardless of LDL-C level. Finally, for people in lower-risk categories, recent clinical trials do not modify the goals and cutpoints of therapy.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines.

The Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) of the National Cholesterol Education Program issued an evidence-based set of guidelines on cholesterol management in 2001. Since the publication of ATP III, 5 major clinical trials of statin therapy with clinical end points have been published. These trials addressed issues that were not examined in previous clinical trials of cholesterol-lowering therapy. The present document reviews the results of these recent trials and assesses their implications for cholesterol management. Therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) remain an essential modality in clinical management. The trials confirm the benefit of cholesterol-lowering therapy in high-risk patients and support the ATP III treatment goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL. They support the inclusion of patients with diabetes in the high-risk category and confirm the benefits of LDL-lowering therapy in these patients. They further confirm that older persons benefit from therapeutic lowering of LDL-C. The major recommendations for modifications to footnote the ATP III treatment algorithm are the following. In high-risk persons, the recommended LDL-C goal is <100 mg/dL, but when risk is very high, an LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL is a therapeutic option, ie, a reasonable clinical strategy, on the basis of available clinical trial evidence. This therapeutic option extends also to patients at very high risk who have a baseline LDL-C <100 mg/dL. Moreover, when a high-risk patient has high triglycerides or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), consideration can be given to combining a fibrate or nicotinic acid with an LDL-lowering drug. For moderately high-risk persons (2+ risk factors and 10-year risk 10% to 20%), the recommended LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL, but an LDL-C goal <100 mg/dL is a therapeutic option on the basis of recent trial evidence. The latter option extends also to moderately high-risk persons with a baseline LDL-C of 100 to 129 mg/dL. When LDL-lowering drug therapy is employed in high-risk or moderately high-risk persons, it is advised that intensity of therapy be sufficient to achieve at least a 30% to 40% reduction in LDL-C levels. Moreover, any person at high risk or moderately high risk who has lifestyle-related risk factors (eg, obesity, physical inactivity, elevated triglycerides, low HDL-C, or metabolic syndrome) is a candidate for TLC to modify these risk factors regardless of LDL-C level. Finally, for people in lower-risk categories, recent clinical trials do not modify the goals and cutpoints of therapy.

Aged↗
PubMed1995

Problems with the report of the Expert Panel on blood cholesterol levels in children and adolescents.

An Expert Panel convened by the National Cholesterol Education Program has recommended selective screening and treatment of children for high blood cholesterol levels, based on family history of cardiovascular disease or high blood cholesterol. This recommendation is problematic for several reasons. First, the recommended diets are likely to cause only a slight decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, the projected benefits of which will be offset by a similar decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Lack of efficacy of the recommended diets could lead to use of more restrictive diets or to cholesterol lowering drugs. Second, even under optimistic assumptions, beneficial effects of cholesterol intervention will be small and delayed for many decades. As a result, childhood cholesterol-lowering efforts will not be cost-effective. Third, the Expert Panel's recommendations do not address important gender differences. Girls have higher average cholesterol levels than boys. They will therefore qualify for more dietary and drug treatment despite their lower age-adjusted risk of heart disease and the lack of association between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular mortality in women. Finally, recent evidence from randomized trials, cohort studies, and animal experiments suggests that cholesterol lowering may have serious adverse effects. This evidence was not discussed in the Expert Panel's report. Given current evidence, any screening and treatment of children for high blood cholesterol levels is, at best, premature.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

[Cardiac pacing for the prevention of atrial fibrillation. A current review].

Several prospective randomized clinical trials have reported that atrial-based "physiological" pacing is associated with a lower incidence of paroxysmal and permanent atrial fibrillation than single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with conventional pacemaker indication. Whether atrial pacing itself is antiarrhythmic remains still uncertain. By contrast, right ventricular pacing is considered to beget atrial fibrillation, even in preserved AV synchrony during dual-chamber pacing. A number of clinical trials investigated the impact of sitespecific atrial pacing and advanced atrial pacing algorithms on the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation. Multisite pacing (dual-site right atrial or biatrial pacing) was demonstrated to add only minimal benefit for the prevention of atrial fibrillation. By contrast, in some studies septal pacing and specific atrial pacing algorithms were reported to reduce the recurrence of atrial fibrillation in selected patients. At present, however, it remains unclear how to identify these patients. In clinical practice, the effectiveness of specific atrial pacing algorithms and/or septal pacing has to be tested out in the individual case. These therapeutic options should be considered in patients with a conventional indication for antibradycardia pacing and, additionally, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

Algorithms↗