Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 95
Filtrar
3.
Blood Adv ; 5(4): 927-974, 2021 Feb 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33570602

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33623379

RESUMO

Background: Despite hospitalization for exacerbation being a high-risk event for morbidity and mortality, there is little consensus globally regarding the assessment and management of hospitalised exacerbations of COPD. We aimed to establish a consensus list of symptoms, physiological measures, clinical scores, patient questionnaires and investigations to be obtained at time of hospitalised COPD exacerbation and follow-up. Methods: A modified Delphi online survey with pre-defined consensus of importance, feasibility and frequency of measures at hospitalisation and follow-up of a COPD exacerbation was undertaken. Findings: A total of 25 COPD experts from 18 countries contributed to all 3 rounds of the survey. Experts agreed that a detailed history and examination were needed. Experts also agreed on which treatments are needed and how soon these should be delivered. Experts recommended that a full blood count, renal function, C-reactive protein and cardiac blood biomarkers (BNP and troponin) should be measured within 4 hours of admission and that the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) and COPD assessment test (CAT) should be performed at time of exacerbation and follow-up. Experts encouraged COPD clinicians to strongly consider discussing palliative care, if indicated, at time of hospitalisation. Interpretation: This Europe-wide consensus document is the first attempt to standardise the assessment and care of patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations. This should be regarded as the starting point to build knowledge and evidence on patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations.

5.
Environ Int ; 146: 106157, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33395953

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

6.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 135: 42-53, 2021 Jan 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33476768

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This article explores the need for conceptual advances and practical guidance in the application of the GRADE approach within public health contexts. METHODS: We convened an expert workshop and conducted a scoping review to identify challenges experienced by GRADE users in public health contexts. We developed this concept article through thematic analysis and an iterative process of consultation and discussion conducted with members electronically and at three GRADE Working Group meetings. RESULTS: Five priority issues can pose challenges for public health guideline developers and systematic reviewers when applying GRADE: (1) incorporating the perspectives of diverse stakeholders; (2) selecting and prioritizing health and "nonhealth" outcomes; (3) interpreting outcomes and identifying a threshold for decision-making; (4) assessing certainty of evidence from diverse sources, including nonrandomized studies; and (5) addressing implications for decision makers, including concerns about conditional recommendations. We illustrate these challenges with examples from public health guidelines and systematic reviews, identifying gaps where conceptual advances may facilitate the consistent application or further development of the methodology and provide solutions. CONCLUSION: The GRADE Public Health Group will respond to these challenges with solutions that are coherent with existing guidance and can be consistently implemented across public health decision-making contexts.

7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jan 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33480973

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. METHODS: IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

8.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 70(1): 1-12, 2021 01 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33417593

RESUMO

This report summarizes the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (Ervebo) in the United States. The vaccine contains rice-derived recombinant human serum albumin and live attenuated recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) in which the gene encoding the glycoprotein of VSV was replaced with the gene encoding the glycoprotein of Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus. Persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to rice protein should not receive Ervebo. This is the first and only vaccine currently licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of Ebola virus disease (EVD). These guidelines will be updated based on availability of new data or as new vaccines are licensed to protect against EVD.ACIP recommends preexposure vaccination with Ervebo for adults aged ≥18 years in the U.S. population who are at highest risk for potential occupational exposure to Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus because they are responding to an outbreak of EVD, work as health care personnel at federally designated Ebola treatment centers in the United States, or work as laboratorians or other staff at biosafety level 4 facilities in the United States. Recommendations for use of Ervebo in additional populations at risk for exposure and other settings will be considered and discussed by ACIP in the future.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra Ebola/administração & dosagem , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Comitês Consultivos , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/epidemiologia , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , United States Food and Drug Administration
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1653-1656, 2021 Jan 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33382675

RESUMO

On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine (ModernaTX, Inc; Cambridge, Massachusetts), a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). This vaccine is the second COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). Vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (100 µg, 0.5 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 1 month (4 weeks) apart. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ Use of all COVID-19 vaccines authorized under an EUA, including the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendations for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (3). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Imunização/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Adolescente , Adulto , Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , /efeitos adversos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Aprovação de Drogas , Emergências , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , United States Food and Drug Administration , Adulto Jovem
10.
J Vis Exp ; (166)2020 12 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33346190

RESUMO

There is a growing awareness that cells grown in 3D better model in vivo behavior than those grown in 2D. In this protocol, we describe a simple and tunable 3D hydrogel, suitable for culturing cells and tissue in a setting that matches their native environment. This is particularly important for researchers investigating the initiation, growth, and treatment of cancer where the interaction between cells and their local extracellular matrix is a fundamental part of the model. Moving to 3D culture can be challenging and is often associated with a lack of reproducibility due to high batch-to-batch variation in animal-derived 3D culture matrices. Similarly, handling issues can limit the usefulness of synthetic hydrogels. In response to this need, we have optimized a simple self-assembling peptide gel, to enable the culture of relevant cell line models of cancer and disease, as well as patient-derived tissue/cells. The gel itself is free from matrix components, apart from those added during encapsulation or deposited into the gel by the encapsulated cells. The mechanical properties of the hydrogels can also be altered independent of matrix addition. It, therefore, acts as a 'blank slate' allowing researchers to build a 3D culture environment that reflects the target tissue of interest and to dissect the influences of mechanical forces and/or biochemical control of cell behavior independently.


Assuntos
Técnicas de Cultura de Células/métodos , Hidrogéis/química , Modelos Biológicos , Neoplasias/patologia , Peptídeos/química , Animais , Morte Celular , Sobrevivência Celular , Matriz Extracelular/química , Células HCT116 , Humanos , Células MCF-7 , RNA/metabolismo , Reologia , Coloração e Rotulagem
11.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(50): 1922-1924, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33332292

RESUMO

On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine (Pfizer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (30 µg, 0.3 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 3 weeks apart. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ The recommendation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendation for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (2). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.


Assuntos
/administração & dosagem , Imunização/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Adolescente , Adulto , Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , /prevenção & controle , Aprovação de Drogas , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
12.
CMAJ ; 192(40): E1138-E1145, 2020 Oct 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33020121

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.

13.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 129: 1-11, 2020 Sep 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33010401

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.

14.
Oncol Nurs Forum ; 47(6): E211-E224, 2020 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33063777

RESUMO

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of national clinical practice guidelines on the management of cancer constipation. LITERATURE SEARCH: PubMed®, Wiley Cochrane Library, and CINAHL® were searched for studies published from May 2009 to May 2019. DATA EVALUATION: Two investigators independently reviewed and extracted data from eligible studies. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. SYNTHESIS: For patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation, moderate benefit was found for osmotic or stimulant laxatives; small benefit was found for methylnaltrexone, naldemedine, and electroacupuncture. For patients with cancer and non-opioid-related constipation, moderate benefit was found for naloxegol, prucalopride, lubiprostone, and linaclotide; trivial benefit was found for acupuncture. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Effective strategies for managing opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer include lifestyle, pharmacologic, and complementary approaches. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS: //bit.ly/3c4yewT.

15.
Oncol Nurs Forum ; 47(6): E225-E236, 2020 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33063778

RESUMO

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to inform the development of guidelines on the management of radiodermatitis among patients with cancer. LITERATURE SEARCH: The authors updated a systematic review to include available literature published through September 30, 2019. DATA EVALUATION: Two investigators assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: The use of deodorant/antiperspirant had no effect on development of radiodermatitis. Aloe vera and emu oil were equivalent or less effective than standard care. Oral curcumin had a minimal beneficial effect. Nonsteroidal topical interventions had a minimal beneficial effect on the development of moist desquamation and relief of itching while causing a small increase for grade 2 radiodermatitis. Topical calendula increased risk for the development of radiodermatitis. Topical steroids and dressings each showed benefits to minimize the development of radiodermatitis and moist desquamation while lowering rates of patient-reported symptoms, such as pain and pruritus. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Symptom management strategies for radiodermatitis among patients with cancer that are likely to be effective include topical nonsteroidals, topical steroids, and dressings. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS: //bit.ly/2FWj3Kp.

16.
Oncol Nurs Forum ; 47(6): 654-670, 2020 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33063779

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Radiodermatitis is a side effect of radiation therapy. Evidence-based interventions to minimize severity or delay progression are important for clinical care. This guideline intends to support individuals with cancer, clinicians, and others in decisions regarding radiodermatitis treatment. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: A panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation was convened to develop a national clinical practice guideline for the management of radiodermatitis. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine criteria for trustworthy guidelines were followed. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. A quantitative and narrative synthesis of the evidence was completed. FINDINGS: The panel agreed on eight recommendations and made a conditional recommendation for deodorant/antiperspirant. Aloe vera and oral curcumin had knowledge gaps and were recommended only in the context of a clinical trial. The panel suggested against emu oil, calendula, and nonsteroidal interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: This guideline summarizes evidence-based interventions for the management of radiodermatitis to guide clinical care. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS: //bit.ly/2GEwJtT.

17.
Oncol Nurs Forum ; 47(6): 671-691, 2020 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33063786

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This evidence-based guideline intends to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of constipation in patients with cancer. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: An interprofessional panel of healthcare professionals with patient representation prioritized clinical questions and patient outcomes for the management of cancer-related constipation. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. FINDINGS: The panel agreed on 13 recommendations for the management of opioid-induced and non-opioid-related constipation in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The panel conditionally recommended a bowel regimen in addition to lifestyle education as first-line treatment for constipation. For patients starting opioids, the panel suggests a bowel regimen as prophylaxis. Pharmaceutical interventions are available and recommended if a bowel regimen has failed. Acupuncture and electroacupuncture for non-opioid-related constipation are recommended in the context of a clinical trial. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL CAN BE FOUND AT&NBSP;HTTPS: //bit.ly/30y29sI.

19.
Blood Adv ; 4(20): 5184-5193, 2020 Oct 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33095876

RESUMO

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic adverse drug reaction occurring in <0.1% to 7% of patients receiving heparin products depending on the patient population and type of heparin. Management of HIT is highly dependent on a sequence of tests for which clinicians may or may not have the results when care decisions need to be made. We conducted systematic reviews of the effects of management strategies in persons with acute HIT, subacute HIT A or B, and remote HIT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database through July 2019 for previously published systematic reviews and primary studies. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We found primarily noncomparative studies and case series assessing effects of treatments, which led to low to very low certainty evidence. There may be little to no difference in the effects between nonheparin parenteral anticoagulants and direct oral anticoagulants in acute HIT. The benefits of therapeutic-intensity may be greater than prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. Using inferior vena cava filters or platelet transfusion may result in greater harm than not using these approaches. Evidence for management in special situations, such as for patients undergoing cardiovascular interventions or renal replacement therapy, was also low to very low certainty. Additional research to evaluate nonheparin anticoagulants is urgently needed, and the development of novel treatments that reduce thrombosis without increasing hemorrhage should be a priority.

20.
Environ Int ; 145: 106089, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32950789

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Welding fumes have been classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); this assessment found sufficient evidence from studies in humans that welding fumes are a cause of lung cancer. In this article, we present the protocol for a systematic review of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus and lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus and lung cancer, applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. DATA SOURCES: We will search electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The eligible risk factor will be occupational exposure to welding fumes, measured directly or indirectly (i.e., through proxy of relevant occupation, work task, job-exposure matrix, expert judgment or self-report). The eligible outcomes will be trachea, bronchus and lung cancer. We will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any occupational exposure to welding fumes on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality from trachea, bronchus and lung cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level of no occupational exposure to welding fumes. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Two or more review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the Navigation Guide tool or approach. If feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...