Caregivers of people with neurodegenerative diseases: profile and unmet needs from a population-based survey in South Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) are characterized by progressive decline and loss of function, requiring considerable third-party care. NDD carers report low quality of life and high caregiver burden. Despite this, little information is available about the unmet needs of NDD caregivers. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional, whole of population study conducted in South Australia were analyzed to determine the profile and unmet care needs of people who identify as having provided care for a person who died an expected death from NDDs including motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis. Bivariate analyses using chi(2) were complemented with a regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty respondents had a person close to them die from an NDD in the 5 years before responding. NDD caregivers were more likely to have provided care for more than 2 years and were more able to move on after the death than caregivers of people with other disorders such as cancer. The NDD caregivers accessed palliative care services at the same rate as other caregivers at the end of life, however people with an NDD were almost twice as likely to die in the community (odds ratio [OR] 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 3.01) controlling for relevant caregiver factors. NDD caregivers reported significantly more unmet needs in emotional, spiritual, and bereavement support. CONCLUSION: This study is the first step in better understanding across the whole population the consequences of an expected death from an NDD. Assessments need to occur while in the role of caregiver and in the subsequent bereavement phase.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america.

Cryptococcosis is a global invasive mycosis associated with significant morbidity and mortality. These guidelines for its management have been built on the previous Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines from 2000 and include new sections. There is a discussion of the management of cryptococcal meningoencephalitis in 3 risk groups: (1) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals, (2) organ transplant recipients, and (3) non-HIV-infected and nontransplant hosts. There are specific recommendations for other unique risk populations, such as children, pregnant women, persons in resource-limited environments, and those with Cryptococcus gattii infection. Recommendations for management also include other sites of infection, including strategies for pulmonary cryptococcosis. Emphasis has been placed on potential complications in management of cryptococcal infection, including increased intracranial pressure, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), drug resistance, and cryptococcomas. Three key management principles have been articulated: (1) induction therapy for meningoencephalitis using fungicidal regimens, such as a polyene and flucytosine, followed by suppressive regimens using fluconazole; (2) importance of early recognition and treatment of increased intracranial pressure and/or IRIS; and (3) the use of lipid formulations of amphotericin B regimens in patients with renal impairment. Cryptococcosis remains a challenging management issue, with little new drug development or recent definitive studies. However, if the diagnosis is made early, if clinicians adhere to the basic principles of these guidelines, and if the underlying disease is controlled, then cryptococcosis can be managed successfully in the vast majority of patients.

Final report of the Lyme disease review panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

In April 2008, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) entered into an agreement with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to voluntarily undertake a special review of its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines. This agreement ended the Attorney General's investigation into the process by which the guidelines were developed. The IDSA agreed to convene an independent panel to conduct a one-time review of the guidelines. The Review Panel members, vetted by an ombudsman for potential conflicts of interest, reviewed the entirety of the 2006 guidelines, with particular attention to the recommendations devoted to post-Lyme disease syndromes. After multiple meetings, a public hearing, and extensive review of research and other information, the Review Panel concluded that the recommendations contained in the 2006 guidelines were medically and scientifically justified on the basis of all of the available evidence and that no changes to the guidelines were necessary.