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.

Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

BACKGROUND: A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed. RESULTS: Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's. CONCLUSION: In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.