BackgroundPneumonia, diarrhoea, and malaria are among the leading causes of death in children. These deaths are largely preventable if appropriate care is sought early. This review aimed to determine the percentage of caregivers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a child less than 5 years who were able to recognise illness in their child and subsequently sought care from different types of healthcare providers.Methods and FindingsWe conducted a systematic literature review of studies that reported recognition of, and/or care seeking for episodes of diarrhoea, pneumonia or malaria in LMICs. The review is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42011001654). Ninety-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies reported data on caregiver recognition of disease and seventy-seven studies on care seeking. The median sensitivity of recognition of diarrhoea, malaria and pneumonia was low (36.0%, 37.4%, and 45.8%, respectively). A median of 73.0% of caregivers sought care outside the home. Care seeking from community health workers (median: 5.4% for diarrhoea, 4.2% for pneumonia, and 1.3% for malaria) and the use of oral rehydration therapy (median: 34%) was low.ConclusionsGiven the importance of this topic to child survival programmes there are few published studies. Recognition of diarrhoea, malaria and pneumonia by caregivers is generally poor and represents a key factor to address in attempts to improve health care utilisation. In addition, considering that oral rehydration therapy has been widely recommended for over forty years, its use remains disappointingly low. Similarly, the reported levels of care seeking from community health workers in the included studies are low even though global action plans to address these illnesses promote community case management. Giving greater priority to research on care seeking could provide crucial evidence to inform child mortality programmes.

Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

This review confirms that available evidence to guide treatment choice for patients with CSU with inadequate response to H1 antihistamines varies in quality. Further research is warranted due to low-quality trials with methodological and reporting limitations.

Objective To evaluate the nature and burden of residual disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who meet treatment targets. Second, for those who did not meet targets, to evaluate how much is due to patient symptoms. Methods Prospective and retrospective studies were searched in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library in the English language from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2018; conference abstracts (from January 2016 to April 2018) and reference lists of relevant studies were also screened. Results Of 8,339 records identified, 55 were included in the review; 53 were unique studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 48 reported on patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission. Studies varied in population, treatment goals, and outcome reporting. The proportions of patients with residual symptoms in these studies varied by the definitions used for LDA or remission and were more often reported in patients with LDA than those in remission. The most commonly reported outcome measures were functional disability (n = 34 studies), tender or swollen joints (n = 18), pain (n = 17), patient global assessment (n = 15), and fatigue (n = 14). However, few studies reported the percentage of patients achieving a specific threshold, which could then be used to easily define the presence of residual symptoms. Conclusion Residual symptoms are present in some patients despite their achieving LDA or remission, highlighting an unmet need, especially with respect to improving pain, fatigue, and function. Standardized reporting in future observational studies would facilitate better understanding of this issue in defined RA populations.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine recommended target levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for hyperlipidaemia patients at high risk (i.e., with two or more risk factors or coronary heart disease or its risk equivalents) for cardiovascular disease (CVD); to determine LDL-C targets recommended by guidelines, and to examine the proportions of patients who do not achieve targeted LDL-C levels in real-world studies.MethodsElectronic databases were searched: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Library (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2013). Guideline searches were limited to publications in the last 5 years. There were no geographical or language restrictions.ResultsSeventeen guidelines and 42 observational studies that reported on high-risk hyperlipidaemia patients were identified. The National Cholesterol Education Program–Adult Treatment Panel III’s LDL-C target levels were the most common guidelines used for patients with very high hyperlipidaemia. However, between 68 and 96 % of patients in the studies did not achieve an LDL-C goal <70 mg/dL, except in one study conducted in China (16.9 %). In high-risk patients, 61.8 to 93.8 % did not achieve a target of <100 mg/dL. Regarding common comorbidities, patients with concomitant CVD or diabetes were least likely to reach their target LDL-C goals.ConclusionIn patients with high risk for CVD, the majority of patients do not attain recommended LDL-C goals, highlighting worldwide suboptimal hyperlipidaemia management and missed opportunities for reduction of the patients CVD risk. Lipid-modifying management strategies need to be intensified.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0241-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Lenograstim 2 microg/kg provides similar protection to 5 microg/kg against neutropenia that complicates standard-dose chemotherapy. The use of a lower dose has important implications for the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic G-CSF therapy.

These two children with AS were able to utilise cognitive strategies to effectively solve their motor performance problems. Children with AS and those with DCD used similar strategies to achieve motor goals. CO-OP appears to have potential as an effective intervention for children with AS. Study limitations, clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.