Key Articles and Guidelines Relative to Intensive Care Unit Pharmacology—2004

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90189/1/phco.25.4.585.61024.pd

Key Articles and Guidelines Relative to Intensive Care Unit Pharmacotherapy: 2009 Update

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90162/1/phco.29.10.1228.pd

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

Background Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone’s touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention. Objectives To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes. Search methods We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015. Selection criteria Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies. Main results We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear. For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty). For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening. Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data. The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use. Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/ substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers. Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the intervention

Ultra-rare genetic variation in common epilepsies: a case-control sequencing study

BACKGROUND:Despite progress in understanding the genetics of rare epilepsies, the more common epilepsies have proven less amenable to traditional gene-discovery analyses. We aimed to assess the contribution of ultra-rare genetic variation to common epilepsies. METHODS:We did a case-control sequencing study with exome sequence data from unrelated individuals clinically evaluated for one of the two most common epilepsy syndromes: familial genetic generalised epilepsy, or familial or sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy. Individuals of any age were recruited between Nov 26, 2007, and Aug 2, 2013, through the multicentre Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project and Epi4K collaborations, and samples were sequenced at the Institute for Genomic Medicine (New York, USA) between Feb 6, 2013, and Aug 18, 2015. To identify epilepsy risk signals, we tested all protein-coding genes for an excess of ultra-rare genetic variation among the cases, compared with control samples with no known epilepsy or epilepsy comorbidity sequenced through unrelated studies. FINDINGS:We separately compared the sequence data from 640 individuals with familial genetic generalised epilepsy and 525 individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy to the same group of 3877 controls, and found significantly higher rates of ultra-rare deleterious variation in genes established as causative for dominant epilepsy disorders (familial genetic generalised epilepsy: odd ratio [OR] 2·3, 95% CI 1·7-3·2, p=9·1 × 10-8; familial non-acquired focal epilepsy 3·6, 2·7-4·9, p=1·1 × 10-17). Comparison of an additional cohort of 662 individuals with sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy to controls did not identify study-wide significant signals. For the individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy, we found that five known epilepsy genes ranked as the top five genes enriched for ultra-rare deleterious variation. After accounting for the control carrier rate, we estimate that these five genes contribute to the risk of epilepsy in approximately 8% of individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy. Our analyses showed that no individual gene was significantly associated with familial genetic generalised epilepsy; however, known epilepsy genes had lower p values relative to the rest of the protein-coding genes (p=5·8 × 10-8) that were lower than expected from a random sampling of genes. INTERPRETATION:We identified excess ultra-rare variation in known epilepsy genes, which establishes a clear connection between the genetics of common and rare, severe epilepsies, and shows that the variants responsible for epilepsy risk are exceptionally rare in the general population. Our results suggest that the emerging paradigm of targeting of treatments to the genetic cause in rare devastating epilepsies might also extend to a proportion of common epilepsies. These findings might allow clinicians to broadly explain the cause of these syndromes to patients, and lay the foundation for possible precision treatments in the future. FUNDING:National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and Epilepsy Research UK

Copyright, Ownership, and Digital Media: A Trilogy

Book review: FREE CULTURE: HOW BIG MEDIA USES TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW TO LOCK DOWN CULTURE AND CONTROL CREATIVITY. By Lawrence Lessig. 2004. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press. Pp. xiii, 386. Reviewed by Jessica L. Reyman. Book review: PROMISES TO KEEP: TECHNOLOGY, LAW, AND THE FUTURE OF ENTERTAINMENT. By William W. Fisher III. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Pp. ix, 340. Reviewed by Gretchen Haas. Book review: THE ANARCHIST IN THE LIBRARY: HOW THE CLASH BETWEEN FREEDOM AND CONTROL IS HACKING THE REAL WORLD AND CRASHING THE SYSTEM. By Siva Vaidhyanathan. 2004. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Pp. ix, 256. Reviewed by Laurie A. Johnson & Krista A. Kennedy