A strategy to advance the evidence base in palliative medicine: formation of a palliative care research cooperative group.

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine has made rapid progress in establishing its scientific and clinical legitimacy, yet the evidence base to support clinical practice remains deficient in both the quantity and quality of published studies. Historically, the conduct of research in palliative care populations has been impeded by multiple barriers including health care system fragmentation, small number and size of potential sites for recruitment, vulnerability of the population, perceptions of inappropriateness, ethical concerns, and gate-keeping. METHODS: A group of experienced investigators with backgrounds in palliative care research convened to consider developing a research cooperative group as a mechanism for generating high-quality evidence on prioritized, clinically relevant topics in palliative care. RESULTS: The resulting Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) agreed on a set of core principles: active, interdisciplinary membership; commitment to shared research purposes; heterogeneity of participating sites; development of research capacity in participating sites; standardization of methodologies, such as consenting and data collection/management; agile response to research requests from government, industry, and investigators; focus on translation; education and training of future palliative care researchers; actionable results that can inform clinical practice and policy. Consensus was achieved on a first collaborative study, a randomized clinical trial of statin discontinuation versus continuation in patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months who are taking statins for primary or secondary prevention. This article describes the formation of the PCRC, highlighting processes and decisions taken to optimize the cooperative group's success.

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.