Explore the vast range of titles available.

Prescriber disagreement is among the reasons for poor adherence to COPD treatment guidelines; it is yet not clear whether this leads to adverse outcomes. We tested whether undertreatment according to the original Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines led to increased exacerbations. Records of 878 patients with spirometrically confirmed COPD who were followed from 2005 to 2010 at one Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center were analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to assess differences in exacerbation rates between severity groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between noncompliance with guidelines and exacerbation rates. About 19% were appropriately treated by guidelines; 14% overtreated, 44% under-treated, and in 23% treatment did not follow any guideline. Logistic regression revealed a strong inverse relationship between undertreatment and exacerbation rate when severity of obstruction was held constant. Exacerbations per year by GOLD stage were significantly different from each other: mild 0.15, moderate 0.27, severe 0.38, very severe 0.72, and substantially fewer than previously reported. The guidelines were largely not followed. Undertreatment predominated but, contrary to expectations, was associated with fewer exacerbations. Thus, clinicians were likely advancing therapy primarily based upon exacerbation rates as was subsequently recommended in revised GOLD and other more recent guidelines. In retrospect, a substantial lack of prescriber adherence to treatment guidelines may have been a signal that they required re-evaluation. This is likely to be a general principle regarding therapeutic guidelines. The identification of fewer exacerbations in this cohort than has been generally reported probably reflects the comprehensive nature of the VA system, which is more likely to identify relatively asymptomatic (ie, nonexacerbating) COPD patients. Accordingly, these rates may better reflect those in the general population. In addition, the lower rates may reflect the more complete preventive care provided by the VA.

The sixth edition of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines was completed in July 2021, incorporating new evidence that emerged after publication of the previous edition. It consists of a text-based “Treatments” part and a “Clinical Questions” part including recommendations and explanations for clinical questions. The treatments parts include a comprehensive description regarding surgery, endoscopic resection and chemotherapy for gastric cancer. The clinical question part is based on the literature search and evaluation by an independent systematic review team. Consequently, not only evidence for each therapeutic recommendation was clearly shown, but it also identified the research fields that require further evaluation to provide appropriate recommendations.

The past decade has brought important advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis and its management and treatment. New classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, better definitions of treatment outcome and remission, and the introduction of biologic response-modifying drugs designed to inhibit the inflammatory process have greatly altered the approach to managing this disease. More aggressive management of rheumatoid arthritis early after diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease has resulted in improvement in patient functioning and quality of life, reduction in comorbid conditions, and enhanced survival.

Background: Psychological therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous systematic reviews have grouped theoretically similar interventions to determine differences between broadly distinct approaches. Consequently, we know little regarding the relative efficacy of the specific manualized therapies commonly applied to the treatment of PTSD. Objective: To determine the effect sizes of manualized therapies for PTSD. Methods: We undertook a systematic review following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. A pre-determined definition of clinical importance was applied to the results and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: 114 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of 8171 participants were included. There was robust evidence that the therapies broadly defined as CBT with a trauma focus (CBT-T), as well as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), had a clinically important effect. The manualized CBT-Ts with the strongest evidence of effect were Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT); Cognitive Therapy (CT); and Prolonged Exposure (PE). There was also some evidence supporting CBT without a trauma focus; group CBT with a trauma focus; guided internet-based CBT; and Present Centred Therapy (PCT). There was emerging evidence for a number of other therapies. Conclusions: A recent increase in RCTs of psychological therapies for PTSD, results in a more confident recommendation of CBT-T and EMDR as the first-line treatments. Among the CBT-Ts considered by the review CPT, CT and PE should be the treatments of choice. The findings should guide evidence informed shared decision-making between patient and clinician.

Part II of the European clinical guidelines for Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders (ECAP journal, 2011) provides updated information and recommendations for psychological interventions for individuals with tic disorders, created by a working group of the European Society for the Study of Tourette Syndrome (ESSTS). A systematic literature search was conducted to obtain original studies of psychological interventions for tic disorders, published since the initial European clinical guidelines were issued. Relevant studies were identified using computerized searches of the MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases for the years 2011–2019 and a manual search for the years 2019–2021. Based on clinical consensus, psychoeducation is recommended as an initial intervention regardless of symptom severity. According to a systematic literature search, most evidence was found for Habit Reversal Training (HRT), primarily the expanded package Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT). Evidence was also found for Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP), but to a lesser degree of certainty than HRT/CBIT due to fewer studies. Currently, cognitive interventions and third-wave interventions are not recommended as stand-alone treatments for tic disorders. Several novel treatment delivery formats are currently being evaluated, of which videoconference delivery of HRT/CBIT has the most evidence to date. To summarize, when psychoeducation alone is insufficient, both HRT/CBIT and ERP are recommended as first-line interventions for tic disorders. As part of the development of the clinical guidelines, a survey is reported from ESSTS members and other tic disorder experts on preference, use and availability of psychological interventions for tic disorders.

According to current treatment guidelines for Complex PTSD (cPTSD), psychotherapy for adults with cPTSD should start with a “stabilization phase.” This phase, focusing on teaching self‐regulation strategies, was designed to ensure that an individual would be better able to tolerate trauma‐focused treatment. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the research underlying these treatment guidelines for cPTSD, and to specifically address the question as to whether a phase‐based approach is needed. As reviewed in this paper, the research supporting the need for phase‐based treatment for individuals with cPTSD is methodologically limited. Further, there is no rigorous research to support the views that: (1) a phase‐based approach is necessary for positive treatment outcomes for adults with cPTSD, (2) front‐line trauma‐focused treatments have unacceptable risks or that adults with cPTSD do not respond to them, and (3) adults with cPTSD profit significantly more from trauma‐focused treatments when preceded by a stabilization phase. The current treatment guidelines for cPTSD may therefore be too conservative, risking that patients are denied or delayed in receiving conventional evidence‐based treatments from which they might profit.

There have been some modest recent advancements in the research of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, yet the amount and quality of the work in this complicated multifactorial disease remains low (with some notable exceptions; e.g., the recent work on the dorsal root ganglion stimulation). The semi-systematic (though in some cases narrative) approach to review is necessary so that we might treat our patients while waiting for “better research.” This semi-systematic review was conducted by experts in the field, (deliberately) some of whom are promising young researchers supplemented by the experience of “elder statesman” researchers, who all mention the system they have used to examine the literature. What we found is generally low- to medium-quality research with small numbers of subjects; however, there are some recent exceptions to this. The primary reason for this paucity of research is the fact that this is a rare disease, and it is very difficult to acquire a sufficient sample size for statistical significance using traditional statistical approaches. Several larger trials have failed, probably due to using the broad general diagnostic criteria (the “Budapest” criteria) in a multifactorial/multi-mechanism disease. Responsive subsets can often be identified in these larger trials, but not sufficient to achieve statistically significant results in the general diagnostic grouping. This being the case the authors have necessarily included data from less compelling protocols, including trials such as case series and even in some instances case reports/empirical information. In the humanitarian spirit of treating our often desperate patients with this rare syndrome, without great evidence, we must take what data we can find (as in this work) and tailor a treatment regime for each patient.

A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America to update the 2004 clinical practice guideline on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). This guideline is intended to provide insight for healthcare professionals who prescribe and oversee the provision of OPAT. It considers various patient features, infusion catheter issues, monitoring questions, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. It does not offer recommendations on the treatment of specific infections. The reader is referred to disease- or organism-specific guidelines for such support.

The Princeton Consensus (Expert Panel) Conference is a multispecialty collaborative tradition dedicated to optimizing sexual function and preserving cardiovascular health. The third Princeton Consensus met November 8 to 10, 2010, and had 2 primary objectives. The first objective focused on the evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and no known cardiovascular disease (CVD), with particular emphasis on identification of men with ED who may require additional cardiologic work-up. The second objective focused on reevaluation and modification of previous recommendations for evaluation of cardiac risk associated with sexual activity in men with known CVD. The Panel's recommendations build on those developed during the first and second Princeton Consensus Conferences, first emphasizing the use of exercise ability and stress testing to ensure that each man's cardiovascular health is consistent with the physical demands of sexual activity before prescribing treatment for ED, and second highlighting the link between ED and CVD, which may be asymptomatic and may benefit from cardiovascular risk reduction.

Abstract Background A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. Observations A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. Conclusions and Relevance The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.