Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 62
Filtrar
1.
Kidney Int ; 100(4): 753-779, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34556300

RESUMO

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases is an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline. The aim is to assist clinicians caring for individuals with glomerulonephritis (GN), both adults and children. The scope includes various glomerular diseases, including IgA nephropathy and IgA vasculitis, membranous nephropathy, nephrotic syndrome, minimal change disease (MCD), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), infection-related GN, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) vasculitis, lupus nephritis, and anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody GN. In addition, this guideline will be the first to address the subtype of complement-mediated diseases. Each chapter follows the same format providing guidance related to diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and special situations. The goal of the guideline is to generate a useful resource for clinicians and patients by providing actionable recommendations based on evidence syntheses, with useful infographics incorporating views from experts in the field. Another aim is to propose research recommendations for areas where there are gaps in knowledge. The guideline targets a broad global audience of clinicians treating GN while being mindful of implications for policy and cost. Development of this guideline update followed an explicit process whereby treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies, and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, with areas of future research also presented.


Assuntos
Glomerulonefrite por IGA , Glomerulonefrite Membranosa , Glomerulonefrite , Nefrose Lipoide , Adulto , Criança , Glomerulonefrite/diagnóstico , Glomerulonefrite/terapia , Glomerulonefrite por IGA/diagnóstico , Glomerulonefrite por IGA/terapia , Glomerulonefrite Membranosa/diagnóstico , Glomerulonefrite Membranosa/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Rim
2.
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e050831, 2021 09 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34493521

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To explore values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 17 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. REVIEW METHODS: We analysed data using meta-narrative synthesis (quantitative findings were qualitised) and tabulated review findings according to identified themes. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 1838 initial records, 15 studies proved eligible for review. High to moderate certainty evidence showed that patient's use of medical cannabis for chronic pain was influenced by both positive (eg, support from friends and family) and negative social factors (eg, stigma surrounding cannabis use). Most patients using medical cannabis favoured products with balanced ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or high levels of CBD, but not high THC preparations. Many valued the effectiveness of medical cannabis for symptom management even when experiencing adverse events related to concentration, memory or fatigue. Reducing use of prescription medication was a motivating factor for use of medical cannabis, and concerns regarding addiction, losing control or acting strangely were disincentives. Out-of-pocket costs were a barrier, whereas legalisation of medical cannabis improved access and incentivised use.Low to very low certainty evidence suggested highly variable values towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. Individuals with pain related to life-limiting disease were more willing to use medical cannabis, and preferred oral over inhaled administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight factors that clinicians should consider when discussing medical cannabis. The variability of patients' values and preferences emphasise the need for shared decision making when considering medical cannabis for chronic pain.


Assuntos
Canabidiol , Cannabis , Dor Crônica , Maconha Medicinal , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Dronabinol , Humanos , Maconha Medicinal/uso terapêutico
3.
BMJ ; 374: n2040, 2021 09 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34497062

RESUMO

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.


Assuntos
Canabinoides/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Maconha Medicinal/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Adulto , Canabinoides/efeitos adversos , Criança , Humanos , Maconha Medicinal/efeitos adversos , Adulto Jovem
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e049130, 2021 07 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34244276

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options. METHODS: Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies. RESULTS: 17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred. CONCLUSIONS: As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020159284.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Adulto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1 , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico
5.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(9): 1270-1281, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34152826

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline. METHODS: The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020. RECOMMENDATIONS: The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.


Assuntos
Hipertensão/etiologia , Hipertensão/prevenção & controle , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Humanos
6.
BMJ ; 373: n1091, 2021 05 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33975892

RESUMO

CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/uso terapêutico , Transportador 2 de Glucose-Sódio/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Humanos , Nefropatias/prevenção & controle , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Medição de Risco
7.
Kidney int ; 99(3): 559-569, Mar. 1, 2021. tab
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1281918

RESUMO

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.


Assuntos
Humanos , Criança , Adolescente , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Monitorização Ambulatorial da Pressão Arterial/normas , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/prevenção & controle , Exercício Físico , Diabetes Mellitus/prevenção & controle , Transplantados , Estilo de Vida Saudável , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico
8.
BMJ (Online) ; 372(526): 1-5, Mar. 2, 2021. tab
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1281892

RESUMO

Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter?There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.


Assuntos
Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/efeitos dos fármacos , COVID-19/tratamento farmacológico , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico
9.
BMJ ; 372: n526, 2021 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33649077

RESUMO

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.


Assuntos
COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Quimioprevenção , Hidroxicloroquina/farmacologia , Medição de Risco , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Quimioprevenção/métodos , Quimioprevenção/normas , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Humanos , Fatores Imunológicos/farmacologia , SARS-CoV-2/efeitos dos fármacos , Incerteza , Organização Mundial da Saúde
10.
Heart ; 107(16): 1289-1295, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33563630

RESUMO

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

11.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246991, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33592037

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. METHOD: We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). RESULTS: Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Tomada de Decisões , Intenção , Internet , Programas de Rastreamento/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários
12.
Kidney Int ; 99(3): 559-569, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33637203

RESUMO

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.


Assuntos
Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Pressão Sanguínea , Criança , Humanos , Estilo de Vida , Diálise Renal/efeitos adversos , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapia
13.
Eur Urol ; 79(6): 796-809, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33461781

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Understanding men's values and preferences in the context of personal, physical, emotional, relational, and social factors is important in optimising patient counselling, facilitating treatment decision-making, and improving guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence regarding the values, preferences, and expectations of men towards the investigation and treatment (conservative, pharmacological, and surgical) of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched electronic databases until August 31, 2020 for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported values and preferences regarding the investigation and treatment of LUTS in men. We assessed the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approaches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 25 quantitative studies, three qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study recruiting 9235 patients. Most men reported urodynamic testing to be acceptable, despite discomfort or embarrassment, as it significantly informs treatment decisions (low certainty evidence). Men preferred conservative and less risky treatment options, but the preference varied depending on baseline symptom severity and the risk/benefit characteristics of the treatment (moderate certainty). Men preferred pharmacological treatments with a low risk of erectile dysfunction and those especially improving urgency incontinence (moderate certainty). Other important preference considerations included reducing the risk of acute urinary retention or surgery (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Men prefer lower-risk management options that have fewer sexual side effects and are primarily effective at improving urgency incontinence and nocturia. Overall, the evidence was rated to be of low to moderate certainty. This review can facilitate the treatment decision-making process and improve the trustworthiness of guideline recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly reviewed the evidence addressing men's values and preferences regarding the management of urinary symptoms and found that minimising adverse effects is particularly important. Further research to understand other factors that matter to men is required.

14.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(3): 385-394, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33166222

RESUMO

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization developed a clinical practice guideline in 2020 for the management of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) was tasked with developing the guideline for diabetes management in CKD. It defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined systematic review topics, and graded evidence that had been summarized by an evidence review team. The English-language literature searches, which were initially done through October 2018, were updated in February 2020. The WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of the recommendations. Expert judgment was used to develop consensus practice points supplementary to the evidence-based graded recommendations. The guideline document underwent open public review. Comments from various stakeholders, subject matter experts, and industry and national organizations were considered before the document was finalized. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline includes 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD. This synopsis focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and educational and integrated care approaches.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Humanos , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapia
15.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 129: 104-113, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33049326

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations. RESULTS: The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship. CONCLUSION: Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

16.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 133: 61-71, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33321175

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.


Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico/estatística & dados numéricos , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Satisfação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Reabilitação/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , América do Norte , Adulto Jovem
17.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e037854, 2020 12 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33268400

RESUMO

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Humanos , Incidência , Programas de Rastreamento , Projetos de Pesquisa
18.
BMJ ; 370: m3379, 2020 09 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32887691

RESUMO

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment and prevention of covid-19? NEW RECOMMENDATION: The latest version of this WHO living guidance provides strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity. These recommendations follow the publication of results from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial RECOMMENDATIONS: This guidance adds to recommendations for corticosteroids and remdesivir published in the previous versions, with no changes made in this update: (a) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, (b) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, (c) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: WHO has partnered with the non-profit Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) for methodologic support, to develop and disseminate living guidance for covid-19 drug treatments, based on a living systematic review and network analysis. An international standing Guideline Development Group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the GRADE approach. No competing interests were identified for any panel member. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: When moving from the to the strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, the panel was informed by a living systematic review and network meta-analysis of 30 trials with 10 921 participants for hydroxychloroquine and seven trials with 7429 participants for lopinavir-ritonavir. The trials for both drugs included inpatients and outpatients. Moderate certainty evidence for both drugs demonstrated no reduction in mortality or need for mechanical ventilation. There was also low certainty of evidence for harm with both drugs, including diarrhoea and nausea/vomiting. The panel did not anticipate important variability when it comes to patient values and preferences. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and health care systems did not alter the recommendation. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September and 20 November 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. READERS' NOTE: This is the third version (update 2) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , COVID-19 , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Organização Mundial da Saúde
19.
BMJ ; 370: [1-14], Sept. 04, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1129878

RESUMO

What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? The latest version of this WHO living guidance focuses on remdesivir, following the 15 October 2020 preprint publication of results from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial. It contains a weak or conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19 The first version on this living guidance focused on corticosteroids. The strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19 are unchanged.


Assuntos
Humanos , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Antirretrovirais/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/tratamento farmacológico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Ivermectina/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Fatores Imunológicos/uso terapêutico
20.
Oncol Nurs Forum ; 47(5): E171-E189, 2020 09 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32830803

RESUMO

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The comparative effectiveness of available management options for cancer-related secondary lymphedema is unknown. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL®, Embase®, and MEDLINE® were searched for randomized trials comparing conservative treatment strategies. DATA EVALUATION: A network meta-analysis was conducted for lymphedema volume, along with pairwise meta-analyses for remaining outcomes. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: Overall, 36 studies with a total of 1,651 participants were included. Compared to standard care, conservative treatments did not significantly reduce lymphedema volume. There was low to very low certainty evidence of benefit for several treatments on secondary outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is insufficient evidence to suggest important differences between standard care and conservative treatment strategies for reducing lymphedema volume and improving lymphedema-related symptoms. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT HTTPS: //onf.ons.org/supplementary-material-conservative-intervention-strategies-adult-cancer-related-lymphedema.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...