Project description:To review the scientific literature related to the safe handling of hazardous drugs (HDs).Critical analysis of works retrieved from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINHAL, Web of Science and LILACS using the terms "Hazardous Substances", "Antineoplastic Agents" and "Cytostatic Agents", applying "Humans" and "Guidelines" as filters. Date of search: January 2017.In total, 1100 references were retrieved, and from those, 61 documents were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria: 24 (39.3%) documents related to recommendations about HDs; 27 (44.3%) about antineoplastic agents, and 10 (33.3%) about other types of substances (monoclonal antibodies, gene medicine and other chemical and biological agents). In 14 (23.3%) guides, all the stages in the manipulation process involving a risk due to exposure were considered. Only one guide addressed all stages of the handling process of HDs (including stages with and without the risk of exposure). The most described stages were drug preparation (41 guides, 67.2%), staff training and/or patient education (38 guides, 62.3%), and administration (37 guides, 60.7%). No standardized informatics system was found that ensured quality management, traceability and minimization of the risks associated with these drugs.Most of the analysed guidelines limit their recommendations to the manipulation of antineoplastics. The most frequently described activities were preparation, training, and administration. It would be convenient to apply ICTs (Information and Communications Technologies) to manage processes involving HDs in a more complete and simpler fashion.
Project description:In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET-altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET-targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET-altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations.
Project description:IntroductionCognitive impairment is the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias. However, motor decline has been recently described as a prodromal state that can help to detect at-risk individuals. Similarly, sensory changes, sleep and behavior disturbances, and frailty have been associated with higher risk of developing dementia. These clinical findings, together with the recognition that AD pathology precedes the diagnosis by many years, raises the possibility that non-cognitive changes may be early and non-invasive markers for AD or, even more provocatively, that treating non-cognitive aspects may help to prevent or treat AD and related dementias.MethodsA subcommittee of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia reviewed areas of emerging evidence for non-cognitive markers of dementia. We examined the literature for five non-cognitive domains associated with future dementia: motor, sensory (hearing, vision, olfaction), neuro-behavioral, frailty, and sleep. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assign the strength of the evidence and quality of the recommendations. We provide recommendations to primary care clinics and to specialized memory clinics, answering the following main questions: (1) What are the non-cognitive and functional changes associated with risk of developing dementia? and (2) What is the evidence that sensory, motor, behavioral, sleep, and frailty markers can serve as potential predictors of dementia?ResultsEvidence supported that gait speed, dual-task gait speed, grip strength, frailty, neuropsychiatric symptoms, sleep measures, and hearing loss are predictors of dementia. There was insufficient evidence for recommending assessing olfactory and vision impairments as a predictor of dementia.ConclusionsNon-cognitive markers can assist in identifying people at risk for cognitive decline or dementia. These non-cognitive markers may represent prodromal symptoms and several of them are potentially amenable to treatment that might delay the onset of cognitive decline.
Project description:DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.
Project description:IntroductionFirst Nations Australians display remarkable strength and resilience despite the intergenerational impacts of ongoing colonisation. The continuing disadvantage is evident in the higher incidence, prevalence, morbidity and mortality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among First Nations Australians. Nationwide community consultation (Kidney Health Australia, Yarning Kidneys, and Lowitja Institute, Catching Some Air) identified priority issues for guideline development. These guidelines uniquely prioritised the knowledge of the community, alongside relevant evidence using an adapted GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to develop specific recommendations for the management of CKD among First Nations Australians.Main recommendationsThese guidelines explicitly state that health systems have to measure, monitor and evaluate institutional racism and link it to cultural safety training, as well as increase community and family involvement in clinical care and equitable transport and accommodation. The guidelines recommend earlier CKD screening criteria (age ≥ 18 years) and referral to specialists services with earlier criteria of kidney function (eg, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], ≤ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a sustained decrease in eGFR, > 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year) compared with the general population.Changes in management as result of the guidelinesOur recommendations prioritise health care service delivery changes to address institutional racism and ensure meaningful cultural safety training. Earlier detection of CKD and referral to nephrologists for First Nations Australians has been recommended to ensure timely implementation to preserve kidney function given the excess burden of disease. Finally, the importance of community with the recognition of involvement in all aspects and stages of treatment together with increased access to care on Country, particularly in rural and remote locations, including dialysis services.
Project description:Sexual activity offers numerous advantages for physical and mental health but maintains inherent risks in a pandemic situation, such as the current one caused by SARS-CoV-2. A group of experts from the Spanish Association of Sexuality and Mental Health (AESexSAME) has reached a consensus on recommendations to maintain lower-risk sexual activity, depending on one's clinical and partner situations, based on the current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2. Different situations are included in the recommendations: a sexual partner passing quarantine without any symptoms, a sexual partner that has not passed quarantine, a sexual partner with some suspicious symptoms of COVID-19, a positive sexual partner with COVID-19, a pregnant sexual partner, a health professional partner in contact with COVID-19 patients, and people without a sexual partner. The main recommendations include returning to engaging in safe sex after quarantine is over (28 days based on the duration one can carry SARS-CoV-2, or 33 days for those who are >60 years old) and all parties are asymptomatic. In all other cases (for those under quarantine, those with some clinical symptoms, health professionals in contact with COVID-19 patients, and during pregnancy), abstaining from coital/oral/anal sex, substituting it with masturbatory or virtual sexual activity to provide maximum protection from the contagion, and increasing the benefits inherent to sexual activity are recommended. For persons without a partner, not initiating sexual activity with a sporadic partner is strongly recommended.
Project description:Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive, neuroendocrine tumour with high relapse rates, and significant morbidity and mortality. Apart from advances in radiation therapy, progress in the systemic treatment of SCLC had been stagnant for over three decades despite multiple attempts to develop alternative therapeutic options that could improve responses and survival. Recent promising developments in first-line and subsequent therapeutic approaches prompted a Canadian Expert Panel to convene to review evidence, discuss practice patterns, and reach a consensus on the treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The literature search included guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Regular meetings were held from September 2022 to March 2023 to discuss the available evidence to propose and agree upon specific recommendations. The panel addressed biomarkers and histological features that distinguish SCLC from non-SCLC and other neuroendocrine tumours. Evidence for initial and subsequent systemic therapies was reviewed with consideration for patient performance status, comorbidities, and the involvement and function of other organs. The resulting consensus recommendations herein will help clarify evidence-based management of ES-SCLC in routine practice, help clinician decision-making, and facilitate the best patient outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundThe American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Community-acquired Pneumonia (CAP) guidelines were developed using systematic reviews to inform every recommendation, as suggested by the Institute of Medicine Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines. Recent studies suggest that an expert consensus-based approach, called the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process, can produce recommendations that are concordant with recommendations informed by systematic reviews.PurposeThe goal of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the CORE process had it been used to develop the ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines.MethodsExperts in CAP who were not on the guideline panel and had no knowledge of the guideline's systematic reviews or recommendations were recruited to participate in the CORE process, addressing the same questions asked by the guideline panel. Recommendations derived from the CORE process were compared to the guideline recommendations. Concordance of the course of action, strength of recommendation, and quality of evidence were determined.ResultsUsing a threshold of 70% of experts selecting the same course of action to make a recommendation, the CORE process yielded a recommendation for 20 of 31 (65%) questions. Among the 20 CORE-derived recommendations, 19 (95%) were concordant with the guideline recommendations (kappa agreement 0.88, 95% CI .64-1.00). There was less agreement among the strength of recommendations (58%) and quality of evidence (42%).ConclusionsIf the CORE process had been used, 11 systematic reviews would have been necessary rather than 31, with minimal impact on the recommended courses of action.