Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia in Australia: A step towards improving uptake of research findings in health and aged-care settings

This author accepted manuscript (post print) is made available following a 12 month embargo form date of publication (21 April 2016) in accordance with the publisher copyright policy

Dynamic Monitoring and Control of Irreversible Chronic Diseases with Application to Glaucoma

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149269/1/poms12975_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149269/2/poms12975-sup-0001-Appendix.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149269/3/poms12975.pd

Children with autism deserve evidence-based intervention

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Jennifer J Couper and Amanda J Sampso

Multi-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based cognitive behavioural approach to managing fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis

Abstract (provisional) Background Fatigue is one of the most commonly reported and debilitating symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS); approximately two-thirds of people with MS consider it to be one of their three most troubling symptoms. It may limit or prevent participation in everyday activities, work, leisure, and social pursuits, reduce psychological well-being and is one of the key precipitants of early retirement. Energy effectiveness approaches have been shown to be effective in reducing MS-fatigue, increasing self-efficacy and improving quality of life. Cognitive behavioural approaches have been found to be effective for managing fatigue in other conditions, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, and more recently, in MS. The aim of this pragmatic trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a recently developed group-based fatigue management intervention (that blends cognitive behavioural and energy effectiveness approaches) compared with current local practice. Methods This is a multi-centre parallel arm block-randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a six session group-based fatigue management intervention, delivered by health professionals, compared with current local practice. 180 consenting adults with a confirmed diagnosis of MS and significant fatigue levels, recruited via secondary/primary care or newsletters/websites, will be randomised to receive the fatigue management intervention or current local practice. An economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the trial. Primary outcomes are fatigue severity, self-efficacy and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes include fatigue impact, general quality of life, mood, activity patterns, and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes in those receiving the fatigue management intervention will be measured 1 week prior to, and 1, 4, and 12 months after the intervention (and at equivalent times in those receiving current local practice). A qualitative component will examine what aspects of the fatigue management intervention participants found helpful/unhelpful and barriers to change. Discussion This trial is the fourth stage of a research programme that has followed the Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. What makes the intervention unique is that it blends cognitive behavioural and energy effectiveness approaches. A potential strength of the intervention is that it could be integrated into existing service delivery models as it has been designed to be delivered by staff already working with people with MS. Service users will be involved throughout this research. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN7651747

Younger adult type 2 diabetic patients have poorer glycaemic control: A cross-sectional study in a primary care setting in Singapore

10.1186/1472-6823-13-18BMC Endocrine Disorders13-BEDM

Development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: An update and synthesis of the literature with a focus in application to spinal conditions

Study Design:Review.Objectives:The objectives of this review are to (a) summarize the role of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), (b) outline the methodology involved in formulating CPGs, (c) provide an illustration of these principles using a CPG developed for degenerative cervical myelopathy, and (d) highlight the importance of knowledge translation.Methods:A review of the literature was conducted to summarize current standards in CPG development and implementation.Results:CPGs are systematically developed statements intended to affect decisions made by health care providers, policy makers, and patients. The main objectives of CPGs are to synthesize and translate evidence into recommendations, optimize patient outcomes, standardize care, and facilitate shared decision making among physicians, patients, and their caregivers. The main steps involved in the development of CPGs include defining the clinical problem, assembling a multidisciplinary guideline development group and systematic review team, conducting a systematic review of the literature, translating the evidence to recommendations, critically appraising the CPG and updating the document when new studies arise. The final step in developing a CPG is to implement it into clinical practice; this step requires an assessment of the barriers to implementation and the formulation of effective dissemination strategies.Conclusion:CPGs are an important component in the teaching and practice of medicine and are available for a wide spectrum of diseases. CPGs, however, can only be used to influence clinical practice if the recommendations are informed by a systematic review of the literature and developed using rigorous methodology. The opportunity to transform clinical management of spinal conditions is an attractive outcome of the application of high-quality CPGs

International Diabetes Federation guideline for management of postmeal glucose: a review of recommendations

Diabetes is a significant and growing concern, with over 246 million people around the world living with the disease and another 308 million with impaired glucose tolerance. Depending on the resources of different nations, intervention has generally focused on optimizing overall glycaemic control as assessed by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values. Nevertheless, increasing evidence supports the importance of controlling all three members of the glucose triad, namely HbA1c, FPG and postmeal glucose (PMG) in order to improve outcome in diabetes. As part of its global mission to promote diabetes care and prevention and to find a cure, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) recently developed a guideline that reviews evidence to date on PMG and the development of diabetic complications. Based on an extensive database search of the literature, and guided by a Steering and Development Committee including experts from around the world, the IDF Guideline for Management of Postmeal Glucose offers recommendations for appropriate clinical management of PMG. These recommendations are intended to help clinicians and organizations in developing strategies for effective management of PMG in individuals with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. The following review highlights the recommendations of the guideline, the supporting evidence provided and the major conclusions drawn. The full guideline is available for download at http://www.idf.org

Use of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is a form of supplemental nutrition used to treat patients with malnutrition who receive hemodialysis. Once the diagnosis of malnutrition is made in such patients, encouragement of oral intake is the first‐line treatment. If this fails, then enteral or parenteral nutrition may be needed. This review examines the literature on the use of IDPN and summarizes the current recommendations. There is considerable controversy over indications and benefits of IDPN, and well‐controlled, long‐term studies are needed to help tease out these issues. In the interim, clinical judgment should be used when considering IDPN for individual patients

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES).

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 2400 eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year. FUTURE WORK: Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information