Withholding, discontinuing and withdrawing medications in dementia patients at the end of life:a neglected problem in the disadvantaged dying?

Recent years have seen a growing recognition that dementia is a terminal illness and that patients with advanced dementia nearing the end of life do not currently receive adequate palliative care. However, research into palliative care for these patients has thus far been limited. Furthermore, there has been little discussion in the literature regarding medication use in patients with advanced dementia who are nearing the end of life, and discontinuation of medication has not been well studied despite its potential to reduce the burden on the patient and to improve quality of life. There is limited, and sometimes contradictory, evidence available in the literature to guide evidence-based discontinuation of drugs such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic agents, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), antibacterials, antihypertensives, antihyperglycaemic drugs and anticoagulants. Furthermore, end-of-life care of patients with advanced dementia may be complicated by difficulties in accurately estimating life expectancy, ethical considerations regarding withholding or withdrawing treatment, and the wishes of the patient and/or their family. Significant research must be undertaken in the area of medication discontinuation in patients with advanced dementia nearing the end of life to determine how physicians currently decide whether medications should be discontinued, and also to develop the evidence base and provide guidance on systematic medication discontinuation.

A Multicenter, Randomised Open Study of Early Corticosteroid Treatment (OSECT) in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Illness: Comparison of Early and Late Treatment and of Dexamethasone and Inhaled Budesonide

AIM: To compare early (15 days) steroid therapy and dexamethasone with inhaled budesonide in very preterm infants at risk of developing chronic lung disease. METHODS: Five hundred seventy infants from 47 neonatal intensive care units were enrolled. Criteria for enrollment included gestational age 30%. Infants were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 treatment groups in a factorial design: early (15 days) dexamethasone, and delayed selective budesonide. Dexamethasone was given in a tapering course beginning with 0.50 mg/kg/day in 2 divided doses for 3 days reducing by half until 12 days of therapy had elapsed. Budesonide was administered by metered dose inhaler and a spacing chamber in a dose of 400 microg/kg twice daily for 12 days. Delayed selective treatment was started if infants needed mechanical ventilation and >30% oxygen for >15 days. The factorial design allowed 2 major comparisons: early versus late treatment and systemic dexamethasone versus inhaled budesonide. The primary outcome was death or oxygen dependency at 36 weeks and analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcome measures included death or major cerebral abnormality, duration of oxygen treatment, and complications of prematurity. Adverse effects were also monitored daily. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the groups for the primary outcome. Early steroid treatment was associated with a lower primary outcome rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61,1.18) but even after adjustment for confounding variables the difference remained nonsignificant. Dexamethasone-treated infants also had a lower primary outcome rate (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62,1.20) but again this difference remained not significant after adjustment. For death before discharge, dexamethasone and early treatment had worse outcomes than budesonide and delayed selective treatment (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.93,2.16; OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.99,2.30 after adjustment, respectively) with the results not quite reaching significance. Duration of supplementary oxygen was shorter in the early dexamethasone group (median: 31 days vs 40-44 days). Early dexamethasone was also associated with increased weight loss during the first 12 days of treatment (52 g vs 3 g) compared with early budesonide, but over 30 days there was no difference. In the early dexamethasone group, there was a reduced incidence of persistent ductus arteriosus (34% vs 52%-59%) and an increased risk of hyperglycemia (55% vs 29%-34%) compared with the other 3 groups. Dexamethasone was associated with an increased risk of hypertension and gastrointestinal problems compared with budesonide but only the former attained significance. CONCLUSIONS: Infants given early treatment and dexamethasone therapy had improved survival without chronic lung disease at 36 weeks compared with those given delayed selective treatment and inhaled budesonide, respectively, but results for survival to discharge were in the opposite direction; however, none of these findings attained statistical significance. Early dexamethasone treatment reduced the risk of persistent ductus arteriosus. Inhaled budesonide may be safer than dexamethasone, but there is no clear evidence that it is more or less effective

Science for sale in a free market economy: But at what price? ABA and the treatment of autism in Europe.

Educating the public accurately about Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is an important undertaking, not least because misconceptions and myths about ABA abound. In this paper we argue that, unfortunately, the efforts of many dedicated professionals and parents to disseminate accurate information about the benefits of ABA for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are damaged by a few behavior analysts whose focus seems to be more on monetary gains than social responsibility. We cite examples of the resulting harm to the public image of behavior analysis from a number of European countries. We conclude by calling upon fellow scientists to unite in their opposition to unscrupulous abuses of free market forces for short-term monetary gains that damage the dissemination of the science of behavior analysis and thereby ultimately disadvantage those who should benefit primarily from our science, i.e., some of the most vulnerable citizens of society.

Supplemental oxygen and hyperbaric treatment at high altitude: Cardiac and respiratory response

Introduction: The most effective treatment for high altitude sickness is prompt descent. However, rapid descent is sometimes impossible and alternative solutions are desirable. Supplemental oxygen at ambient pressure and hyperbaric oxygen in a hyperbaric tent have both been demonstrated to improve symptoms and increase arterial oxygenation (SaO(2)) in those with high altitude sickness; however, their use in combination has not previously been described in a controlled study. Methods and Results: In this feasibility study, the SaO(2) of six healthy, well-acclimatized participants rose from 76.5 to 97.5% at 4900 m and 72.5 to 96.0% at 5700 m following the administration of oxygen via a nasal demand circuit (33 ml of oxygen per pulse) inside a hyperbaric tent (107 mmHg above ambient barometric pressure) (p