Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 47
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 ; 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
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
Ann Intern Med ; 164(1): 41-9, 2016 Jan 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26594818

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The discrepancy between health care spending and achieved outcomes in the United States has fueled efforts to identify and address situations where unnecessarily expensive therapies are used when less costly, equally effective options are available. The underuse of generic medications is an important example. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to answer 5 questions about generic medications: 1) How commonly are brand-name medications used when a generic version is available? 2) How does the use of generic medications influence adherence? 3) What is the evidence that brand-name and generic medications have similar clinical effects? 4) What are the barriers to increasing the use of generic medications? 5) What strategies can be used to promote cost savings through greater generic medication use? This article was reviewed and approved by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE: Clinicians should prescribe generic medications, if possible, rather than more expensive brand-name medications.


Assuntos
Redução de Custos , Medicamentos Genéricos/economia , Adesão à Medicação , Uso de Medicamentos , Medicamentos Genéricos/farmacocinética , Humanos , Equivalência Terapêutica , Estados Unidos
6.
Ann Intern Med ; 165(2): 125-33, 2016 Jul 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27136449

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of chronic insomnia disorder in adults. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials published in English from 2004 through September 2015. Evaluated outcomes included global outcomes assessed by questionnaires, patient-reported sleep outcomes, and harms. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with chronic insomnia disorder. 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) approach. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that all adult patients receive cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the initial treatment for chronic insomnia disorder. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use a shared decision-making approach, including a discussion of the benefits, harms, and costs of short-term use of medications, to decide whether to add pharmacological therapy in adults with chronic insomnia disorder in whom cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) alone was unsuccessful. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Distúrbios do Início e da Manutenção do Sono/terapia , Adulto , Terapia Cognitivo-Comportamental , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Tomada de Decisões , Custos de Medicamentos , Humanos , Medição de Risco , Distúrbios do Início e da Manutenção do Sono/tratamento farmacológico , Distúrbios do Início e da Manutenção do Sono/psicologia
7.
Ann Intern Med ; 162(12): 851-9, 2015 Jun 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25928075

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice article is to describe the indications for screening for cervical cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 21 years or older. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is a distillation of relevant publications (including systematic reviews) used to support current guidelines. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women younger than 21 years for cervical cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should start screening average-risk women for cervical cancer at age 21 years once every 3 years with cytology (cytologic tests without human papillomavirus [HPV] tests). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women for cervical cancer with cytology more often than once every 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians may use a combination of cytology and HPV testing once every 5 years in average-risk women aged 30 years or older who prefer screening less often than every 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not perform HPV testing in average-risk women younger than 30 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should stop screening average-risk women older than 65 years for cervical cancer if they have had 3 consecutive negative cytology results or 2 consecutive negative cytology plus HPV test results within 10 years, with the most recent test performed within 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women of any age for cervical cancer if they have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix.


Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Programas de Rastreamento , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/diagnóstico , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/efeitos adversos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Testes de DNA para Papilomavírus Humano/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Teste de Papanicolaou/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Risco , Procedimentos Desnecessários/economia , Esfregaço Vaginal/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 162(5): 359-69, 2015 Mar 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25732278

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of risk assessment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, diagnostic accuracy, measures of risk, and harms. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Úlcera por Pressão/prevenção & controle , Bandagens , Leitos , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Nutrição Enteral , Humanos , Posicionamento do Paciente , Úlcera por Pressão/diagnóstico , Úlcera por Pressão/epidemiologia , Medição de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Creme para a Pele , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
9.
Ann Intern Med ; 162(5): 370-9, 2015 Mar 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25732279

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of treatments of pressure ulcers. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Health Technology Assessment database through February 2014. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include complete wound healing, wound size (surface area, volume, and depth) reduction, pain, prevention of sepsis, prevention of osteomyelitis, recurrence rate, and harms of treatment (including but not limited to pain, dermatologic complications, bleeding, and infection). This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients with pressure ulcers. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that clinicians use protein or amino acid supplementation in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use hydrocolloid or foam dressings in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends that clinicians use electrical stimulation as adjunctive therapy in patients with pressure ulcers to accelerate wound healing. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Úlcera por Pressão/terapia , Aminoácidos/administração & dosagem , Curativos Hidrocoloides , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Proteínas Alimentares/administração & dosagem , Suplementos Nutricionais , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Humanos , Recidiva , Cicatrização
10.
Ann Intern Med ; 163(9): 701-11, 2015 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26414967

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) can be a severe disease and is difficult to diagnose, given its nonspecific signs and symptoms. Because of this, testing patients with suspected acute PE has increased dramatically. However, the overuse of some tests, particularly computed tomography (CT) and plasma d-dimer measurement, may not improve care while potentially leading to patient harm and unnecessary expense. METHODS: The literature search encompassed studies indexed by MEDLINE (1966-2014; English-language only) and included all clinical trials and meta-analyses on diagnostic strategies, decision rules, laboratory tests, and imaging studies for the diagnosis of PE. This document is not based on a formal systematic review, but instead seeks to provide practical advice based on the best available evidence and recent guidelines. The target audience for this paper is all clinicians; the target patient population is all adults, both inpatient and outpatient, suspected of having acute PE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should not obtain d-dimer measurements or imaging studies in patients with a low pretest probability of PE and who meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should obtain a high-sensitivity d-dimer measurement as the initial diagnostic test in patients who have an intermediate pretest probability of PE or in patients with low pretest probability of PE who do not meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. Clinicians should not use imaging studies as the initial test in patients who have a low or intermediate pretest probability of PE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should use age-adjusted d-dimer thresholds (age × 10 ng/mL rather than a generic 500 ng/mL) in patients older than 50 years to determine whether imaging is warranted. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not obtain any imaging studies in patients with a d-dimer level below the age-adjusted cutoff. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should obtain imaging with CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with high pretest probability of PE. Clinicians should reserve ventilation-perfusion scans for patients who have a contraindication to CTPA or if CTPA is not available. Clinicians should not obtain a d-dimer measurement in patients with a high pretest probability of PE.


Assuntos
Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Fatores Etários , Angiografia , Protocolos Clínicos , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio/análise , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Procedimentos Desnecessários
11.
Ann Intern Med ; 161(9): 659-67, 2014 Nov 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25364887

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the comparative effectiveness and safety of preventive dietary and pharmacologic management of recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through March 2014), Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The clinical outcomes evaluated for this guideline include symptomatic stone recurrence, pain, urinary tract obstruction with acute renal impairment, infection, procedure-related illness, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, quality of life, and end-stage renal disease. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all adults with recurrent nephrolithiasis (≥1 prior kidney stone episode). RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends management with increased fluid intake spread throughout the day to achieve at least 2 L of urine per day to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends pharmacologic monotherapy with a thiazide diuretic, citrate, or allopurinol to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis in patients with active disease in which increased fluid intake fails to reduce the formation of stones. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Nefrolitíase/dietoterapia , Nefrolitíase/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Alopurinol/uso terapêutico , Quelantes de Cálcio/uso terapêutico , Ácido Cítrico/uso terapêutico , Hidratação , Supressores da Gota/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Nefrolitíase/tratamento farmacológico , Prevenção Secundária/métodos , Inibidores de Simportadores de Cloreto de Sódio/uso terapêutico
12.
Ann Intern Med ; 161(1): 67-72, 2014 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24979451

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the utility of screening pelvic examination for the detection of pathology in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of the published literature in the English language from 1946 through January 2014 identified using MEDLINE and hand-searching. Evaluated outcomes include morbidity; mortality; and harms, including overdiagnosis, overtreatment, diagnostic procedure-related harms, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION: ACP recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Doenças dos Genitais Femininos/diagnóstico , Exame Ginecológico/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Adulto , Feminino , Exame Ginecológico/economia , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/patologia
13.
Ann Intern Med ; 161(6): 429-40, 2014 Sep 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25222388

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence (UI) in women. METHODS: This guideline is based on published English-language literature on nonsurgical management of UI in women from 1990 through December 2013 that was identified using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scirus, and Google Scholar. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include continence, improvement in UI, quality of life, adverse effects, and discontinuation due to adverse effects. It grades the evidence and recommendations by using ACP's guideline grading system. The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all women with UI. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends first-line treatment with pelvic floor muscle training in women with stress UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends bladder training in women with urgency UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends pelvic floor muscle training with bladder training in women with mixed UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP recommends against treatment with systemic pharmacologic therapy for stress UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: ACP recommends pharmacologic treatment in women with urgency UI if bladder training was unsuccessful. Clinicians should base the choice of pharmacologic agents on tolerability, adverse effect profile, ease of use, and cost of medication. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: ACP recommends weight loss and exercise for obese women with UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).


Assuntos
Incontinência Urinária/terapia , Terapia Comportamental , Biorretroalimentação Psicológica/métodos , Eletromiografia , Terapia por Exercício , Feminino , Humanos , Obesidade/complicações , Obesidade/terapia , Diafragma da Pelve , Qualidade de Vida , Bexiga Urinária , Incontinência Urinária/complicações , Incontinência Urinária/diagnóstico , Incontinência Urinária/tratamento farmacológico , Redução de Peso
14.
Ann Intern Med ; 158(10): 761-769, 2013 May 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23567643

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: Prostate cancer is an important health problem in men. It rarely causes death in men younger than 50 years; most deaths associated with it occur in men older than 75 years. The benefits of screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test are outweighed by the harms for most men. Prostate cancer never becomes clinically significant in a patient's lifetime in a considerable proportion of men with prostate cancer detected with the PSA test. They will receive no benefit and are subject to substantial harms from the treatment of prostate cancer. The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guidance statement for clinicians by assessing current prostate cancer screening guidelines developed by other organizations. ACP believes that it is more valuable to provide clinicians with a rigorous review of available guidelines rather than develop a new guideline on the same topic when several guidelines are available on a topic or when existing guidelines conflict. The purpose of this guidance statement is to critically review available guidelines to help guide internists and other clinicians in making decisions about screening for prostate cancer. The target patient population for this guidance statement is all adult men. METHODS: This guidance statement is derived from an appraisal of available guidelines on screening for prostate cancer. Authors searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse to identify prostate cancer screening guidelines in the United States and selected 4 developed by the American College of Preventive Medicine, American Cancer Society, American Urological Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe) instrument was used to evaluate the guidelines. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: ACP recommends that clinicians inform men between the age of 50 and 69 years about the limited potential benefits and substantial harms of screening for prostate cancer. ACP recommends that clinicians base the decision to screen for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen test on the risk for prostate cancer, a discussion of the benefits and harms of screening, the patient's general health and life expectancy, and patient preferences. ACP recommends that clinicians should not screen for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen test in patients who do not express a clear preference for screening. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: ACP recommends that clinicians should not screen for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen test in average-risk men under the age of 50 years, men over the age of 69 years, or men with a life expectancy of less than 10 to 15 years.


Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Tomada de Decisões , Exame Retal Digital/normas , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
15.
Ann Intern Med ; 157(11): 808-16, 2012 Dec 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23208168

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Evidence demonstrates that it is indicated only in certain situations, and inappropriate use generates unnecessary costs and exposes patients to harms without improving outcomes. METHODS: The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians reviewed evidence regarding the indications for, and yield of, upper endoscopy in the setting of GERD, and to highlight how clinicians can increase the delivery of high-value health care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with heartburn and alarm symptoms (dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and recurrent vomiting). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with: Typical GERD symptoms that persist despite a therapeutic trial of 4 to 8 weeks of twice-daily proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Severe erosive esophagitis after a 2-month course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy to assess healing and rule out Barrett esophagus. Recurrent endoscopy after this follow-up examination is not indicated in the absence of Barrett esophagus. History of esophageal stricture who have recurrent symptoms of dysphagia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Upper endoscopy may be indicated: In men older than 50 years with chronic GERD symptoms (symptoms for more than 5 years) and additional risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, and intra-abdominal distribution of fat) to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett esophagus. For surveillance evaluation in men and women with a history of Barrett esophagus. In men and women with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia, surveillance examinations should occur at intervals no more frequently than 3 to 5 years. More frequent intervals are indicated in patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia.


Assuntos
Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/estatística & dados numéricos , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Esôfago de Barrett/diagnóstico , Doença Crônica , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/diagnóstico , Feminino , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/complicações , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/tratamento farmacológico , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/etiologia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Lesões Pré-Cancerosas/diagnóstico , Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco , Procedimentos Desnecessários/economia
16.
Ann Intern Med ; 156(5): 378-86, 2012 Mar 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22393133

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men and women in the United States. The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guidance statement for clinicians by assessing the current guidelines developed by other organizations on screening for colorectal cancer. When multiple guidelines are available on a topic or when existing guidelines conflict, ACP believes that it is more valuable to provide clinicians with a rigorous review of the available guidelines rather than develop a new guideline on the same topic. METHODS: The authors searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse to identify guidelines developed in the United States. Four guidelines met the inclusion criteria: a joint guideline developed by the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology and individual guidelines developed by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Radiology. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: ACP recommends that clinicians perform individualized assessment of risk for colorectal cancer in all adults. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: ACP recommends that clinicians screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults starting at the age of 50 years and in high-risk adults starting at the age of 40 years or 10 years younger than the age at which the youngest affected relative was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: ACP recommends using a stool-based test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at average risk. ACP recommends using optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at high risk. Clinicians should select the test based on the benefits and harms of the screening test, availability of the screening test, and patient preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4: ACP recommends that clinicians stop screening for colorectal cancer in adults over the age of 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of less than 10 years.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Adulto , Idoso , Neoplasias Colorretais/prevenção & controle , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
17.
Breast Cancer Res ; 13(3): R64, 2011 Jun 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21689398

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Many women who survive breast cancer die of causes unrelated to their cancer diagnosis. This study was undertaken to assess factors that are related to breast cancer mortality versus mortality from other causes and to describe the leading causes of death among older women diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 66 or older between 1992 and 2000 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database and followed through the end of 2005. RESULTS: A total of 63,566 women diagnosed with breast cancer met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a median of approximately nine years. Almost one-half (48.7%) were alive at the end of follow-up. Ages and comorbidities at the time of diagnosis had the largest effects on mortality from other causes, while tumor stage, tumor grade, estrogen receptor status, age and comorbidities at the time of diagnosis all had effects on breast cancer-specific mortality. Fully adjusted relative hazards of the effects of comorbidities on breast cancer-specific mortality were 1.24 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.13 to 1.26) for cardiovascular disease, 1.13 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.26) for previous cancer, 1.13 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.22) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 1.10 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) for diabetes. Among the total study population, cardiovascular disease was the primary cause of death in the study population (15.9% (95% CI 15.6 to 16.2)), followed closely by breast cancer (15.1% (95% CI 14.8 to 15.4)). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid conditions contribute importantly to both total mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality among breast cancer survivors. Attention to reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease should be a priority for the long-term care of women following the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Causas de Morte , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Diabetes Mellitus/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/mortalidade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Programa de SEER
20.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 72(5): 1014-9, 2010 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20822769

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In surveys, almost 50% of women prefer a female endoscopist (FE) to perform their screening colonoscopies (SCOs). OBJECTIVE: To assess whether offering women an FE is associated with higher rates of SCOs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University of Colorado Hospital primary care clinics. PATIENTS: Women of ages 50 to 69 years eligible for an SCO. INTERVENTIONS: SCO offers through mail and telephone outreach, with and without an explicit FE option. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Outreach intervention differences in SCO completion rates and percentages of women requesting FE. RESULTS: Of 396 women, 72 (18.2%) underwent SCO without difference by type of invitation. Women who received an FE invitation were more likely to request an FE than patients who received no invitation (44.2% and 4.8%, respectively, P < .001), but women who requested an FE were not more likely to undergo an SCO than those who did not. LIMITATIONS: SCO was offered through an outreach program rather than through in-clinic referrals. The study used a nonrandomized trial comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Women offered an FE were not more likely to undergo an SCO than those who were not. This study is unique in describing outcomes associated with actual offers of an FE at the time of scheduling. More direct evidence is needed to support the notion that the absence of FEs is an important barrier to colorectal cancer screening among women.


Assuntos
Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Promoção da Saúde/organização & administração , Programas de Rastreamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Preferência do Paciente , Fatores Sexuais , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Colorado , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA