Project description:Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.
Project description:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a modern epidemic worldwide. Introducing renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (i.e., ACEi or ARB) not only as blood-pressure-lowering agents, but also as nephroprotective drugs with antiproteinuric potential was a milestone in the therapy of CKD. For decades, this treatment remained the only proven strategy to slow down CKD progression. This situation changed some years ago primarily due to the introduction of drugs designed to treat diabetes that turned into nephroprotective strategies not only in diabetic kidney disease, but also in CKD unrelated to diabetes. In addition, several drugs emerged that precisely target the pathogenetic mechanisms of particular kidney diseases. Finally, the role of metabolic acidosis in CKD progression (and not only the sequelae of CKD) came to light. In this review, we aim to comprehensively discuss all relevant therapies that slow down the progression of non-diabetic kidney disease, including the lowering of blood pressure, through the nephroprotective effects of ACEi/ARB and spironolactone independent from BP lowering, as well as the role of sodium–glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors, acidosis correction and disease-specific treatment strategies. We also briefly address the therapies that attempt to slow down the progression of CKD, which did not confirm this effect. We are convinced that our in-depth review with practical statements on multiple aspects of treatment offered to non-diabetic CKD fills the existing gap in the available literature. We believe that it may help clinicians who take care of CKD patients in their practice. Finally, we propose the strategy that should be implemented in most non-diabetic CKD patients to prevent disease progression.
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians' perceptions and opinions may influence when to initiate dialysis.ObjectiveTo examine providers' perspectives and opinions regarding the timing of dialysis initiation.DesignOnline survey.SettingCommunity and academic dialysis practices in Canada.ParticipantsA nationally-representative sample of dialysis providers.Measurements and methodsDialysis providers opinions assessing reasons to initiate dialysis at low or high eGFR. Responses were obtained using a 9-point Likert scale. Early dialysis was defined as initiation of dialysis in an individual with an eGFR greater than or equal to 10.5 ml/min/m(2). A detailed survey was emailed to all members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) in February 2013. The survey was designed and pre-tested to evaluate duration and ease of administration.ResultsOne hundred and forty one (25% response rate) physicians participated in the survey. The majority were from urban, academic centres and practiced in regionally administered renal programs. Very few respondents had a formal policy regarding the timing of dialysis initiation or formally reviewed new dialysis starts (N = 4, 3.1%). The majority of respondents were either neutral or disagreed that late compared to early dialysis initiation improved outcomes (85-88%), had a negative impact on quality of life (89%), worsened AVF or PD use (84-90%), led to sicker patients (83%) or was cost effective (61%). Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt uremic symptoms occurred earlier in patients with advancing age or co-morbid illness. Half (51.8%) of the respondents felt there was an absolute eGFR at which they would initiate dialysis in an asymptomatic patient. The majority of respondents would initiate dialysis for classic indications for dialysis, such as volume overload (90.1%) and cachexia (83.7%) however a significant number chose other factors that may lead them to early dialysis initiation including avoiding an emergency (28.4%), patient preference (21.3%) and non-compliance (8.5%).Limitations25% response rate.ConclusionsAlthough the majority of nephrologists in Canada who responded followed evidence-based practice regarding the timing of dialysis initiation, knowledge gaps and areas of clinical uncertainty exist. The implementation and evaluation of formal policies and knowledge translation activities may limit potentially unnecessary early dialysis initiation.
Project description:IntroductionTo assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on haemodialysis centres, The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and International Society of Nephrology (ISN) collaborated on a web-survey of centres.MethodsA combined approach of random sampling and open invitation was used between March 2020 and March 2021. Responses were obtained from 412 centres in 78 countries and all 10 ISN regions.ResultsIn 8 regions, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were <20% in most centres, but in North East Asia and Newly Independent States and Russia rates were ≥20% and ≥30%, respectively. Mortality was ≥10% in most centres in 8 regions, though lower in North America and Caribbean and North East Asia. Diagnostic testing was not available in 33%, 37%, and 61% of centres in Latin America, Africa, and East and Central Europe, respectively. Surgical masks were widely available, but severe shortages of particulate-air filter masks were reported in Latin America (18%) and Africa (30%). Rates of infection in staff ranged from 0% in 90% of centres in North East Asia to ≥50% in 63% of centres in the Middle East and 68% of centres in Newly Independent States and Russia. In most centres <10% of staff died, but in Africa and South Asia 2% and 6% of centres reported ≥50% mortality, respectively.ConclusionThere has been wide global variation in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates amongst haemodialysis patients and staff, PPE availability, and testing, and the ways in which services have been redesigned in response to the pandemic.
Project description:Background: Evidence-based guidelines are needed for effective delivery of home oxygen therapy to appropriate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD).Methods: The multidisciplinary panel created six research questions using a modified Delphi approach. A systematic review of the literature was completed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations.Recommendations: The panel found varying quality and availability of evidence and made the following judgments: 1) strong recommendations for long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD (moderate-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe chronic resting hypoxemia, 2) a conditional recommendation against long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD with moderate chronic resting hypoxemia, 3) conditional recommendations for ambulatory oxygen use in patients with COPD (moderate-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe exertional hypoxemia, 4) a conditional recommendation for ambulatory liquid-oxygen use in patients who are mobile outside the home and require >3 L/min of continuous-flow oxygen during exertion (very-low-quality evidence), and 5) a recommendation that patients and their caregivers receive education on oxygen equipment and safety (best-practice statement).Conclusions: These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based use of home oxygen therapy in adults with COPD or ILD but also highlight the need for additional research to guide clinical practice.
Project description:Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is used for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic hypercapnia. However, evidence for clinical efficacy and optimal management of therapy is limited.Target Audience: Patients with COPD, clinicians who care for them, and policy makers.Methods: We summarized evidence addressing five PICO (patients, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the certainty in evidence and generate actionable recommendations. Recommendations were formulated by a panel of pulmonary and sleep physicians, respiratory therapists, and methodologists using the Evidence-to-Decision framework.Recommendations: 1) We suggest the use of nocturnal NIV in addition to usual care for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty); 2) we suggest that patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD undergo screening for obstructive sleep apnea before initiation of long-term NIV (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); 3) we suggest not initiating long-term NIV during an admission for acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2-4 weeks after resolution (conditional recommendation, low certainty); 4) we suggest not using an in-laboratory overnight polysomnogram to titrate NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD who are initiating NIV (conditional recommendation, very low certainty); and 5) we suggest NIV with targeted normalization of PaCO2 in patients with hypercapnic COPD on long-term NIV (conditional recommendation, low certainty).Conclusions: This expert panel provides evidence-based recommendations addressing the use of NIV in patients with COPD and chronic stable hypercapnic respiratory failure.