Medical and surgical treatments for open-angle glaucoma lower intraocular pressure and reduce the risk for optic nerve damage over the short to medium term. Which treatments best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

Background: Over the last 20 years, multiple interventions to better integrate palliative care and intensive care unit (ICU) care have been evaluated. This systematic review summarizes these studies and their outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CI-NAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science; performed a search of articles published by opinion leaders in the field; and reviewed hand-search articles as of August 13, 2012. The terms ''palliative care'' and ''intensive care unit'' were mapped to MeSH subject headings and ''exploded.'' We included trials of adult patients that evaluated an ICU intervention and addressed Robert Wood Johnson group-identified domains of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU. We excluded case series, editorials, and review articles. We compared two types of interventions, integrative and consultative, focusing on the outcomes of patient and family satisfaction, mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), because these were most prevalent among studies. Results: Our search strategy yielded 3328 references, of which we included 37 publications detailing 30 unique interventions. Interventions and outcome measures were heterogeneous, and many studies were underpowered and/or subject to multiple biases. Most of the interventions resulted in a decrease in hospital and ICU LOS. Few interventions significantly affected satisfaction. With one exception, the interventions decreased or had no effect on mortality. There was no evidence of harm from any intervention. Conclusions: Heterogeneity of interventions made comparison of ICU-based palliative care interventions difficult. However, existing evidence suggests proactive palliative care in the ICU, using either consultative or integrative palliative care interventions, decrease hospital and ICU LOS, do not affect satisfaction, and either decrease or do not affect mortality.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in the management of acute COPD exacerbations on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) and on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and other electronically available databases up to September 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo with a follow-up of at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised in one group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. Where outcomes or study details were not reported we requested missing data from the authors of the primary studies. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (OR) for rare events (mortality and adverse events) and weighted mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes using fixed-effect models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials with 2068 participants were included. In outpatients (mild to moderate exacerbations), there was evidence of low quality that antibiotics did statistically significantly reduce the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; I(2) = 35%) but they did not significantly reduce the risk when the meta-analysis was restricted to currently available drugs (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I(2) = 33%). Evidence of high quality showed that antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure in inpatients with severe exacerbations (ICU not included) (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; I(2) = 47%) regardless of whether restricted to current drugs. The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; high-quality evidence).Evidence of low-quality from four trials in inpatients showed no effect of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.79). High-quality evidence from one trial showed a statistically significant effect on mortality in ICU patients (Peto OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72). Length of hospital stay (in da...

Background Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results. Objectives To assess e ects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month a er treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their e ects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation).

BackgroundThe population with multiple chronic conditions is growing. Prior studies indicate that patients with comorbidities are frequently excluded from trials but do not address whether information is available in trials to draw conclusions about treatment effects for these patients.Methods and FindingsWe conducted a literature survey of trials from 11 Cochrane Reviews for four chronic diseases (diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke). The Cochrane Reviews systematically identified and summarized trials on the effectiveness of diuretics, metformin, anticoagulants, longacting beta-agonists alone or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, lipid lowering agents, exercise and diet. Eligible studies were reports of trials included in the Cochrane reviews and additional papers that described the methods of these trials. We assessed the exclusion and inclusion of people with comorbidities, the reporting of comorbidities, and whether comorbidities were considered as potential modifiers of treatment effects. Overall, the replicability of both the inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 6.0 (2.1), range (min-max): 1–9.5) and exclusion criteria(mean(SD): 5.3 (2.1), range: 1–9.5) was only moderate. Trials excluded patients with many common comorbidities. The proportion of exclusions for comorbidities ranged from 0–42 percent for heart failure, 0–55 percent for COPD, 0–44 percent for diabetes, and 0–39 percent for stroke. Seventy of the 161 trials (43.5%) described the prevalence of any comorbidity among participants with the index disease. The reporting of comorbidities in trials was very limited, in terms of reporting an operational definition and method of ascertainment for the presence of comorbidity and treatments for the comorbidity. It was even less common that the trials assessed whether comorbidities were potential modifiers of treatment effects.ConclusionsComorbidities receive little attention in chronic disease trials. Given the public health importance of people with multiple chronic conditions, trials should better report on comorbidities and assess the effect comorbidities have on treatment outcomes.

Communication in the care of patients with advanced and serious illness can be improved using quality improvement interventions, particularly for healthcare utilization as an outcome. Interventions may be more effective using a consultative approach.

Antibiotics effectively reduce treatment failure and mortality rates in COPD patients with severe exacerbations. For patients with mild to moderate exacerbations, antibiotics may not be generally indicated and further research is needed to guide antibiotic prescription in these patients.

BackgroundRisk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.MethodsWe searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.ResultsWe identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.ConclusionsOnly a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.