This systematic review confirms that higher SUA levels are associated with increased risk of incident and recurrent gout in a graded manner. Although few prospective cohorts have evaluated incident and recurrent gout according to SUA, the existing evidence underscores the need to treat to SUA targets, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism.
The complexity of breathlessness in advanced disease requires a diversity of measures ideally tailored to the individual patient needs. ‘Breathlessness services’ have been systematically developed and tested to provide specific interventions and support for patients and their carers. The aim of this article is (1) to identify and describe components of breathlessness services and (2) to describe the clinical model of one specific service in more detail. This article is based on a systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which examine the effectiveness of services aiming to improve breathlessness of patients with advanced disease. The Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS) is described in detail as an example of a recently set-up specialist service. Five service models were identified which were tested in six RCTs. Services varied regarding structure and composition with face-to-face meetings, some with additional telephone contacts. Service duration was median 6 weeks (range 2–12 weeks). Involved professions were nurses, various therapists and, in two models, also physicians. The breathing–thinking–functioning model was targeted by various service components. The MBS is run by a multi-professional team mainly with physicians and physiotherapists. Patients are seen weekly over 5–6 weeks with an individualized management plan. Breathlessness services are a new model for patients with advanced disease integrating symptom management and early access to palliative care.
Background Late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) is a rare, metabolic disease primarily affecting the musculoskeletal and respiratory systems. Forced vital capacity (FVC) is commonly used to measure pulmonary function; however, associations between FVC and other LOPD outcomes remain unclear. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted on November 2015, updated September 2016 and supplemented with clinical trial data from the sponsor. Outcomes included: 6-min walk test distance (6MWT), FVC, maximal inspiratory/expiratory pressure (MIP/MEP), Medical Research Council-skeletal muscle strength score (MRC), 36-item short-form survey-physical component score (SF-36), Rotterdam Handicap Scale (RHS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and survival. Individual patient data meta-analysis was used for cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal analyses to determine associations between percent of predicted FVC and LOPD measures and outcomes. Results Fifteen studies were selected. From cross-sectional analyses, FVC and MRC were most strongly associated. Specifically, patients with 10% higher FVC (a round number for illustrative purposes only) were associated with a 4.72% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.37, 6.07) higher MRC score, indicating a positive association. Similarly, slopes for the 6MWT and SF-36 relative to a 10% higher FVC were estimated at 33.2 meters (95% CI 24.0, 42.4) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.24, 2.16%), respectively. From longitudinal analyses, a 10% incremental increase in predicted FVC was associated with an average increase of 4.12% in MRC score (95% CI 1.29, 6.95), 35.6 m in the 6MWT (95% CI 19.9, 51.6), and 1.34% in SF-36 (95% CI 0.08, 2.60). There was insufficient data to conduct analyses for RHS, FSS and survival. Conclusions FVC is positively associated with LOPD measures and outcomes across multiple domains. Additionally, longitudinal changes in FVC are positively associated with changes in the 6MWT, MRC and SF-36. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-019-09401-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Objectives: There is scarce information about sedation in nursing homes at the end of life. We aimed to assess (1) the use of sedatives generally and "sedatives with continuous effect," based on objective operational criteria, within the last week of life in nursing homes and (2) factors associated with this treatment. Design: Retrospective cohort study, using the nursing homes' medical records. Setting and Participants: Residents who died in 4 German nursing homes from January 2015 to December 2017 and whose medical records were available (n ¼ 512). Methods: Sedatives analyzed were those recommended by guidelines for "palliative sedation": benzodiazepines, levomepromazine, haloperidol (!5 mg/d), and propofol. The definition of "sedatives with continuous effect" and doses judged as at least moderately sedating were consented by palliative care clinicians and pharmacists, based on the literature. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed (R version 3.6.1). Results: Overall, 110/512 (21%) deceased residents received a sedative at least once during the last week of life, 46/512 (9%) "sedatives with continuous effect." Oral lorazepam was used most frequently. Eleven of 512 (2%) residents received doses judged as at least moderately sedating. The term sedation was not used. Most frequent indications were agitation (58/110; 53%) and anxiety (35/110; 32%); no indication was noted for 36/110 (33%) residents. The resident's involvement in the decision for sedatives was documented in 3/110 (3%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed significant associations between use of sedatives and age (OR ¼ 0.94, P < .001) as well as institution (P < .001). Conclusions and Implications: Our data indicate a lower prevalence of sedation compared to international data and considerable differences regarding prevalence between institutions. These differences, potential setting-specific challenges, and need for support measures for consistent best practice of sedation in nursing homes should be further explored.
IntroductionOver the last decades, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to better understand the patient’s perspective and enable patient-centred care. In palliative care, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is recommended as a PRO tool. Its implementation in specialised palliative home care (SPHC) would benefit from an electronic version validated for the setting.Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, the study Palli-MONITOR is developing (phase 1) and testing the feasibility (phase 2) of implementing the electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) in the SPHC setting to inform a cluster-randomised phase 3 trial.Methods and analysisPalli-MONITOR is a multicentre, sequential mixed-methods, two-phase development and feasibility study. The study consists of four substudies. In phase 1 (MRC development phase), qualitative patient interviews and focus groups with SPHC professionals are used to identify barriers and facilitators of eIPOS (substudy I). Substudy II tests the equivalence of eIPOS and IPOS in a crossover randomised controlled trial. Phase 2 (MRC feasibility/piloting phase) includes a quasi-experimental study with two control groups (substudy III), and qualitative interviews as well as focus groups to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the developed intervention (substudy IV).Qualitative data will be analysed with thematic analysis following the framework approach. Quantitative analysis uses a two-way intraclass correlation coefficients model for the equivalence testing. Quantitative analysis of the quasi-experimental study will focus on the primary outcomes, recruitment rates and completeness of eIPOS. Secondary outcomes will include intraindividual change in palliative symptoms and concerns, quality of life and symptom burden.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich was received for all study parts. Results and experiences will be presented at congresses and in written form. Additionally, participating SPHC teams will receive summarised results.Trial registration numberNCT03879668.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.