Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 49
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 176(1): 115-124, 2023 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36442061

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. METHODS: The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. PRACTICE POINT 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 3: Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 4: Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 5: Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 6: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 7: Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 8: Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 9: Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 10: Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 11: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 12: Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 13: Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 14: Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial , Antivirais , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/virologia , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estados Unidos , Sociedades Médicas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto
2.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(4): 556-565, 2022 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35073153

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the current best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. This is version 2 of the ACP practice points, which serves to update version 1, published on 16 March 2021. These practice points do not evaluate vaccine-acquired immunity or cellular immunity. METHODS: The SMPC developed this version of the living, rapid practice points based on an updated living, rapid, systematic review conducted by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to predict the degree or duration of natural immunity conferred by antibodies against reinfection, including natural immunity against different variants. RETIREMENT FROM LIVING STATUS: Although natural immunity remains a topic of scientific interest, this topic is being retired from living status given the availability of effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and widespread recommendations for and prevalence of their use. Currently, vaccination is the best clinical recommendation for preventing infection, reinfection, and serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Médicos , Anticorpos Antivirais , Formação de Anticorpos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Humanos , Imunidade Inata , Reinfecção , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(8): 1126-1132, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34029483

RESUMO

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing "practice points" to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.


Assuntos
COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/terapia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Teste para COVID-19 , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Conflito de Interesses , Humanos , Pandemias , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodos , Estados Unidos
4.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(6): 822-827, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33819054

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: Antimicrobial overuse is a major health care issue that contributes to antibiotic resistance. Such overuse includes unnecessarily long durations of antibiotic therapy in patients with common bacterial infections, such as acute bronchitis with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and cellulitis. This article describes best practices for prescribing appropriate and short-duration antibiotic therapy for patients presenting with these infections. METHODS: The authors conducted a narrative literature review of published clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and individual studies that addressed bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, CAP, UTIs, and cellulitis. This article is based on the best available evidence but was not a formal systematic review. Guidance was prioritized to the highest available level of synthesized evidence. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should limit antibiotic treatment duration to 5 days when managing patients with COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis who have clinical signs of a bacterial infection (presence of increased sputum purulence in addition to increased dyspnea, and/or increased sputum volume). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should prescribe antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia for a minimum of 5 days. Extension of therapy after 5 days of antibiotics should be guided by validated measures of clinical stability, which include resolution of vital sign abnormalities, ability to eat, and normal mentation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: In women with uncomplicated bacterial cystitis, clinicians should prescribe short-course antibiotics with either nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. In men and women with uncomplicated pyelonephritis, clinicians should prescribe short-course therapy either with fluoroquinolones (5 to 7 days) or TMP-SMZ (14 days) based on antibiotic susceptibility. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with nonpurulent cellulitis, clinicians should use a 5- to 6-day course of antibiotics active against streptococci, particularly for patients able to self-monitor and who have close follow-up with primary care.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Uso Excessivo de Medicamentos Prescritos/prevenção & controle , Bronquite/tratamento farmacológico , Celulite (Flegmão)/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/tratamento farmacológico , Cistite/tratamento farmacológico , Esquema de Medicação , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pneumonia Bacteriana/tratamento farmacológico , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Pielonefrite/tratamento farmacológico
5.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(6): 828-835, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33721518

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests raises important questions for clinicians, patients, and public health professionals related to the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians developed these rapid, living practice points to summarize the current and best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody durability after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2, and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The SMPC developed these rapid, living practice points based on a rapid and living systematic evidence review done by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ongoing literature surveillance is planned through December 2021. When new studies are identified and a full update of the evidence review is published, the SMPC will assess the new evidence and any effect on the practice points. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Antibody tests can be useful for the purpose of estimating community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 3: Current evidence is uncertain to predict presence, level, or durability of natural immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against reinfection (after SARS-CoV-2 infection).


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Formação de Anticorpos , Teste para COVID-19/normas , COVID-19/imunologia , Imunidade Inata/imunologia , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Humanos
6.
Ann Intern Med ; 172(2): 126-133, 2020 01 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31905405

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations based on the current evidence of the benefits and harms of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone. This guideline is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and included sexual function, physical function, quality of life, energy and vitality, depression, cognition, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, and other adverse events. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adult men with age-related low testosterone. Recommendation 1a: ACP suggests that clinicians discuss whether to initiate testosterone treatment in men with age-related low testosterone with sexual dysfunction who want to improve sexual function (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The discussion should include the potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences. Recommendation 1b: ACP suggests that clinicians should reevaluate symptoms within 12 months and periodically thereafter. Clinicians should discontinue testosterone treatment in men with age-related low testosterone with sexual dysfunction in whom there is no improvement in sexual function (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). Recommendation 1c: ACP suggests that clinicians consider intramuscular rather than transdermal formulations when initiating testosterone treatment to improve sexual function in men with age-related low testosterone, as costs are considerably lower for the intramuscular formulation and clinical effectiveness and harms are similar. Recommendation 2: ACP suggests that clinicians not initiate testosterone treatment in men with age-related low testosterone to improve energy, vitality, physical function, or cognition (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).


Assuntos
Hipogonadismo/tratamento farmacológico , Testosterona/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Qualidade de Vida , Estados Unidos
7.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(9): 739-748, 2020 11 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32805126

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. The guidance is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. This guideline does not address noninvasive treatment of low back pain, which is covered by a separate ACP guideline that has also been endorsed by AAFP. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic evidence review on the comparative efficacy and safety of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting and a systematic review on the predictors of prolonged opioid use. We evaluated the following clinical outcomes using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system: pain (at ≤2 hours and at 1 to 7 days), physical function, symptom relief, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with or without menthol gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient's treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2A: ACP and AAFP suggest that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with oral NSAIDs to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain, and to improve physical function, or with oral acetaminophen to reduce pain (Grade: conditional recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2B: ACP and AAFP suggest that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with specific acupressure to reduce pain and improve physical function, or with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation to reduce pain (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP and AAFP suggest against clinicians treating patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).


Assuntos
Dor Aguda/terapia , Sistema Musculoesquelético/lesões , Acupressão , Dor Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Aguda/etiologia , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea , Estados Unidos
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 170(12): 863-870, 2019 06 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31181568

RESUMO

The American College of Physicians (ACP) was one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines and has been developing guidelines since 1981. ACP's Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC), in collaboration with staff from the Clinical Policy department, develops clinical guidelines and guidance statements and continues to refine and enhance its methodology. This article presents an update of the CGC's 2010 paper outlining policies, methods, and presentation format of ACP's clinical guidelines and guidance statements. Updated methods include more stringent policies about disclosure of interests and conflict management; inclusion of public perspective; full adoption of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods; more standardized reporting formats that consider value of care, patient comorbid conditions, patient values and preferences, and costs; and further clarification of guidance statement methods.


Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Comitês Consultivos/organização & administração , Conflito de Interesses , Revelação , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Objetivos Organizacionais , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Políticas , Sociedades Médicas/organização & administração , Estados Unidos
9.
Ann Intern Med ; 170(8): 547-560, 2019 04 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30959525

RESUMO

Description: The purpose of this guidance statement is to provide advice to clinicians on breast cancer screening in average-risk women based on a review of existing guidelines and the evidence they include. Methods: This guidance statement is derived from an appraisal of selected guidelines from around the world that address breast cancer screening, as well as their included evidence. All national guidelines published in English between 1 January 2013 and 15 November 2017 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. In addition, the authors selected other guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites associated with all selected guidelines were checked for updates on 10 December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all asymptomatic women with average risk for breast cancer. Guidance Statement 1: In average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years, clinicians should discuss whether to screen for breast cancer with mammography before age 50 years. Discussion should include the potential benefits and harms and a woman's preferences. The potential harms outweigh the benefits in most women aged 40 to 49 years. Guidance Statement 2: In average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, clinicians should offer screening for breast cancer with biennial mammography. Guidance Statement 3: In average-risk women aged 75 years or older or in women with a life expectancy of 10 years or less, clinicians should discontinue screening for breast cancer. Guidance Statement 4: In average-risk women of all ages, clinicians should not use clinical breast examination to screen for breast cancer.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/prevenção & controle , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Mamografia , Programas de Rastreamento , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Densidade da Mama , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/efeitos adversos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Expectativa de Vida , Mamografia/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Uso Excessivo dos Serviços de Saúde , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Exame Físico , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco
10.
Ann Intern Med ; 171(5): 354-361, 2019 09 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31426089

RESUMO

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care-related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.


Assuntos
Autoria , Conflito de Interesses , Revelação , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Humanos , Editoração/normas , Fatores de Tempo
11.
Ann Intern Med ; 171(9): 643-654, 2019 11 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31683290

RESUMO

Description: The purpose of this guidance statement is to guide clinicians on colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. Methods: This guidance statement is derived from a critical appraisal of guidelines on screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults and the evidence presented in these guidelines. National guidelines published in English between 1 June 2014 and 28 May 2018 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. The authors also included 3 guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites were searched for guideline updates in December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults at average risk for colorectal cancer. Guidance Statement 1: Clinicians should screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years. Guidance Statement 2: Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the basis of a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences. Suggested screening tests and intervals are fecal immunochemical testing or high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical testing every 2 years. Guidance Statement 3: Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.


Assuntos
Colonoscopia/normas , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Consenso , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Médicos , Sociedades Médicas , Humanos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
12.
Ann Intern Med ; 168(8): 569-576, 2018 04 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29507945

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians developed this guidance statement to guide clinicians in selecting targets for pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes. Methods: The National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Guidelines International Network library were searched (May 2017) for national guidelines, published in English, that addressed hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets for treating type 2 diabetes in nonpregnant outpatient adults. The authors identified guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. In addition, 4 commonly used guidelines were reviewed, from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology, the American Diabetes Association, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the guidelines. Guidance Statement 1: Clinicians should personalize goals for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes on the basis of a discussion of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy, patients' preferences, patients' general health and life expectancy, treatment burden, and costs of care. Guidance Statement 2: Clinicians should aim to achieve an HbA1c level between 7% and 8% in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Guidance Statement 3: Clinicians should consider deintensifying pharmacologic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who achieve HbA1c levels less than 6.5%. Guidance Statement 4: Clinicians should treat patients with type 2 diabetes to minimize symptoms related to hyperglycemia and avoid targeting an HbA1c level in patients with a life expectancy less than 10 years due to advanced age (80 years or older), residence in a nursing home, or chronic conditions (such as dementia, cancer, end-stage kidney disease, or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure) because the harms outweigh the benefits in this population.


Assuntos
Glicemia/metabolismo , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/metabolismo , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos
13.
Gerontol Geriatr Educ ; 40(1): 30-42, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30160623

RESUMO

An interprofessional education (IPE) simulation-based geriatric palliative care training was developed to educate health professions students in team communication. In health care, interprofessional communication is critical to team collaboration and patient and family caregiver outcomes. Studies suggest that acquiring skills to work on health care teams and communicate with team members should occur during the early stage of professional education. The Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC®) competency-based framework was used to inform the training. An evaluation examined attitudes toward health care teams, self-efficacy in communication skills, interprofessional collaboration, and participant satisfaction with the training experience. One-hundred and eleven participants completed pre- and post-training surveys. Overall, a majority of participants (97.3%) were satisfied with the training and reported more positive attitudes toward health care teams and greater self-efficacy in team communication skills. IPE participants had higher collaboration scores compared to observer learners. Further research is needed to explore long-term effects of IPE in clinical practice.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Geriatria/educação , Ocupações em Saúde/economia , Cuidados Paliativos/organização & administração , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Adulto , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Comportamento Cooperativo , Feminino , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , Masculino , Autoeficácia , Treinamento por Simulação/organização & administração , Adulto Jovem
14.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(1): 58-68, 2017 01 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27802508

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of gout. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials; systematic reviews; and large observational studies published between January 2010 and March 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, joint swelling and tenderness, activities of daily living, patient global assessment, recurrence, intermediate outcomes of serum urate levels, and harms. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute or recurrent gout. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians choose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use low-dose colchicine when using colchicine to treat acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP recommends against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: ACP recommends that clinicians discuss benefits, harms, costs, and individual preferences with patients before initiating urate-lowering therapy, including concomitant prophylaxis, in patients with recurrent gout attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Gota/tratamento farmacológico , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Hormônio Adrenocorticotrópico/efeitos adversos , Hormônio Adrenocorticotrópico/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Colchicina/efeitos adversos , Colchicina/uso terapêutico , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Gota/sangue , Gota/dietoterapia , Supressores da Gota/efeitos adversos , Supressores da Gota/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Estilo de Vida , Recidiva , Ácido Úrico/sangue , Suspensão de Tratamento
15.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(6): 430-437, 2017 03 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28135725

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) jointly developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older. Methods: This guideline is based on a systematic review of published randomized, controlled trials for primary outcomes and observational studies for harms only (identified through EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov), from database inception through January 2015. The MEDLINE search was updated through September 2016. Evaluated outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity and mortality related to stroke, major cardiac events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death), and harms. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes all adults aged 60 years or older with hypertension. Recommendation 1: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians initiate treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with systolic blood pressure persistently at or above 150 mm Hg to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 150 mm Hg to reduce the risk for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient. Recommendation 2: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for recurrent stroke. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient. Recommendation 3: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in some adults aged 60 years or older at high cardiovascular risk, based on individualized assessment, to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for stroke or cardiac events. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores Etários , Anti-Hipertensivos/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Comorbidade , Humanos , Medição de Risco , Prevenção Secundária , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle
16.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(4): 279-290, 2017 02 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28055075

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on oral pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults. This guideline serves as an update to the 2012 ACP guideline on the same topic. This guideline is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Methods: This guideline is based on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and observational studies published through December 2015 on the comparative effectiveness of oral medications for type 2 diabetes. Evaluated interventions included metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. Study quality was assessed, data were extracted, and results were summarized qualitatively on the basis of the totality of evidence identified by using several databases. Evaluated outcomes included intermediate outcomes of hemoglobin A1c, weight, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate; all-cause mortality; cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy; and harms. This guideline grades the recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians prescribe metformin to patients with type 2 diabetes when pharmacologic therapy is needed to improve glycemic control. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians consider adding either a sulfonylurea, a thiazolidinedione, an SGLT-2 inhibitor, or a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin to improve glycemic control when a second oral therapy is considered. (Grade: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence.) ACP recommends that clinicians and patients select among medications after discussing benefits, adverse effects, and costs.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Administração Oral , Adulto , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Angiopatias Diabéticas/mortalidade , Angiopatias Diabéticas/prevenção & controle , Quimioterapia Combinada , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Frequência Cardíaca/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Metformina/efeitos adversos , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Compostos de Sulfonilureia/efeitos adversos , Compostos de Sulfonilureia/uso terapêutico , Redução de Peso/efeitos dos fármacos
18.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(1): 52-57, 2017 01 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27802479

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis of gout. Methods: This guideline is based on a systematic review of published studies on gout diagnosis, identified using several databases, from database inception to February 2016. Evaluated outcomes included the accuracy of the test results; intermediate outcomes (results of laboratory and radiographic tests, such as serum urate and synovial fluid crystal analysis and radiographic or ultrasonography changes); clinical decision making (additional testing and pharmacologic or dietary management); short-term clinical (patient-centered) outcomes, such as pain and joint swelling and tenderness; and adverse effects of the tests. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations by using the ACP grading system, which is based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with joint inflammation suspected to be gout. Recommendation: ACP recommends that clinicians use synovial fluid analysis when clinical judgment indicates that diagnostic testing is necessary in patients with possible acute gout. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Gota/diagnóstico , Adulto , Algoritmos , Gota/classificação , Gota/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Líquido Sinovial/química , Ácido Úrico/análise
19.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(11): 818-839, 2017 06 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28492856

RESUMO

Description: This guideline updates the 2008 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on treatment of low bone density and osteoporosis to prevent fractures in men and women. This guideline is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews; large observational studies (for adverse events); and case reports (for rare events) that were published between 2 January 2005 and 3 June 2011. The review was updated to July 2016 by using a machine-learning method, and a limited update to October 2016 was done. Clinical outcomes evaluated were fractures and adverse events. This guideline focuses on the comparative benefits and risks of short- and long-term pharmacologic treatments for low bone density, including pharmaceutical prescriptions, calcium, vitamin D, and estrogen. Evidence was graded according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The target patient population includes men and women with low bone density and osteoporosis. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk for hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis. (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians treat osteoporotic women with pharmacologic therapy for 5 years. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: ACP recommends against bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 5: ACP recommends against using menopausal estrogen therapy or menopausal estrogen plus progestogen therapy or raloxifene for the treatment of osteoporosis in women. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 6: ACP recommends that clinicians should make the decision whether to treat osteopenic women 65 years of age or older who are at a high risk for fracture based on a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and benefits, harms, and costs of medications. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Doenças Ósseas Metabólicas/complicações , Doenças Ósseas Metabólicas/tratamento farmacológico , Fraturas Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Osteoporose/complicações , Osteoporose/tratamento farmacológico , Cálcio da Dieta/uso terapêutico , Denosumab/uso terapêutico , Difosfonatos/uso terapêutico , Terapia de Reposição de Estrogênios , Exercício Físico , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Osteoporose Pós-Menopausa/complicações , Osteoporose Pós-Menopausa/tratamento farmacológico , Cloridrato de Raloxifeno/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco , Teriparatida/uso terapêutico , Vitamina D/uso terapêutico
20.
Ann Intern Med ; 166(7): 514-530, 2017 04 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28192789

RESUMO

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain. Recommendation 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to nonpharmacologic therapy, clinicians and patients should consider pharmacologic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, or tramadol or duloxetine as second-line therapy. Clinicians should only consider opioids as an option in patients who have failed the aforementioned treatments and only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks for individual patients and after a discussion of known risks and realistic benefits with patients. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Dor Aguda/terapia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Dor Lombar/terapia , Terapia por Acupuntura , Dor Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Analgésicos/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Temperatura Alta/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Terapia a Laser , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Terapias Mente-Corpo , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Psicoterapia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA