5 resultados para PBL tutorial background clinical information needs
Resumo:
AIMS: Differentiation of heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction independent of echocardiography is challenging in the community. Diagnostic strategies based on monitoring circulating microRNA (miRNA) levels may prove to be of clinical value in the near future. The aim of this study was to identify a novel miRNA signature that could be a useful HF diagnostic tool and provide valuable clinical information on whether a patient has HFrEF or HFpEF.
METHODS AND RESULTS: MiRNA biomarker discovery was carried out on three patient cohorts, no heart failure (no-HF), HFrEF, and HFpEF, using Taqman miRNA arrays. The top five miRNA candidates were selected based on differential expression in HFpEF and HFrEF (miR-30c, -146a, -221, -328, and -375), and their expression levels were also different between HF and no-HF. These selected miRNAs were further verified and validated in an independent cohort consisting of 225 patients. The discriminative value of BNP as a HF diagnostic could be improved by use in combination with any of the miRNA candidates alone or in a panel. Combinations of two or more miRNA candidates with BNP had the ability to improve significantly predictive models to distinguish HFpEF from HFrEF compared with using BNP alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.82).
CONCLUSION: This study has shown for the first time that various miRNA combinations are useful biomarkers for HF, and also in the differentiation of HFpEF from HFrEF. The utility of these biomarker combinations can be altered by inclusion of natriuretic peptide. MiRNA biomarkers may support diagnostic strategies in subpopulations of patients with HF.
Resumo:
Aims: Epidemiological evidence suggests that adipokines may be associated with the onset of type 2 diabetes, but the evidence to date is limited and inconclusive. This study examined the association between adiponectin and leptin and the subsequent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in a UK population based cohort of non-diabetic middle-aged men.
Methods: Baseline serum levels of leptin and adiponectin were measured in 1839 nondiabetic men aged 50–60 years who were participating in the prospective populationbased PRIME study. Over a mean follow-up of 14.7 years, new cases of type 2 diabetes were determined from self-reported clinical information with subsequent validation by general practitioners.
Results: 151 Participants developed type 2 diabetes during follow-up. In Cox regression models adjusted for age, men in the top third of the leptin distribution were at increased risk (hazard ratio (HR) 4.27, 95% CI 2.67–6.83) and men in the top third of the adiponectin
distribution at reduced risk (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14–0.42) relative to men in the bottom third. However, significance was lost for leptin after additional adjustment for BMI, waist to hip ratio, lifestyle factors and biological risk factors, including C-reactive protein (CRP). Further adjustment for HOMA-IR also resulted in loss of significance for adiponectin.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that adipokines are associated with men’s future type 2 diabetes risk but not independently of other risk factors.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of ophthalmologists versus optometrists to correctly classify retinal lesions due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
DESIGN: Randomised balanced incomplete block trial. Optometrists in the community and ophthalmologists in the Hospital Eye Service classified lesions from vignettes comprising clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomographic images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard).
SETTING: Internet-based application.
PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmologists with experience in the age-related macular degeneration service; fully qualified optometrists not participating in nAMD shared care.
INTERVENTIONS: The trial emulated a conventional trial comparing optometrists' and ophthalmologists' decision-making, but vignettes, not patients, were assessed. Therefore, there were no interventions and the trial was virtual. Participants received training before assessing vignettes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-correct classification of the activity status of a lesion based on a vignette, compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes-potentially sight-threatening errors, judgements about specific lesion components and participants' confidence in their decisions.
RESULTS: In total, 155 participants registered for the trial; 96 (48 in each group) completed all assessments and formed the analysis population. Optometrists and ophthalmologists achieved 1702/2016 (84.4%) and 1722/2016 (85.4%) correct classifications, respectively (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; p=0.543). Optometrists' decision-making was non-inferior to ophthalmologists' with respect to the prespecified limit of 10% absolute difference (0.298 on the odds scale). Optometrists and ophthalmologists made similar numbers of sight-threatening errors (57/994 (5.7%) vs 62/994 (6.2%), OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57; p=0.789). Ophthalmologists assessed lesion components as present less often than optometrists and were more confident about their classifications than optometrists.
CONCLUSIONS: Optometrists' ability to make nAMD retreatment decisions from vignettes is not inferior to ophthalmologists' ability. Shared care with optometrists monitoring quiescent nAMD lesions has the potential to reduce workload in hospitals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07479761; pre-results registration.
Resumo:
Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.
Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.
Setting Irish and UK general practice.
Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.
Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).
Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.
Resumo:
Background
Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed.
Aims
The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice.
Methods
A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis.
Results
Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions.
Conclusion
A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice.
