Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: intensive care.

Nutritional support in the intensive care setting represents a challenge but it is fortunate that its delivery and monitoring can be followed closely. Enteral feeding guidelines have shown the evidence in favor of early delivery and the efficacy of use of the gastrointestinal tract. Parenteral nutrition (PN) represents an alternative or additional approach when other routes are not succeeding (not necessarily having failed completely) or when it is not possible or would be unsafe to use other routes. The main goal of PN is to deliver a nutrient mixture closely related to requirements safely and to avoid complications. This nutritional approach has been a subject of debate over the past decades. PN carries the considerable risk of overfeeding which can be as deleterious as underfeeding. Therefore the authors will present not only the evidence available regarding the indications for PN, its implementation, the energy required, its possible complementary use with enteral nutrition, but also the relative importance of the macro- and micronutrients in the formula proposed for the critically ill patient. Data on long-term survival (expressed as 6 month survival) will also be considered a relevant outcome measure. Since there is a wide range of interpretations regarding the content of PN and great diversity in its practice, our guidance will necessarily reflect these different views. The papers available are very heterogeneous in quality and methodology (amount of calories, nutrients, proportion of nutrients, patients, etc.) and the different meta-analyses have not always taken this into account. Use of exclusive PN or complementary PN can lead to confusion, calorie targets are rarely achieved, and different nutrients continue to be used in different proportions. The present guidelines are the result of the analysis of the available literature, and acknowledging these limitations, our recommendations are intentionally largely expressed as expert opinions.

Choice of Initial Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Individuals With HIV Infection: Determinants and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines give recommendations for preferred combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We investigated factors influencing the choice of initial cART in clinical practice and its outcome. METHODS We analyzed treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and starting cART from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009. The primary end point was the choice of the initial antiretroviral regimen. Secondary end points were virologic suppression, the increase in CD4 cell counts from baseline, and treatment modification within 12 months after starting treatment. RESULTS A total of 1957 patients were analyzed. Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC)-efavirenz was the most frequently prescribed cART (29.9%), followed by TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r (16.9%), TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r (12.9%), zidovudine-lamivudine (ZDV-3TC)-lopinavir/r (12.8%), and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC-3TC)-efavirenz (5.7%). Differences in prescription were noted among different Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, starting TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r was associated with prior AIDS (relative risk ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.35), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.53; 1.07-2.18), and CD4 greater than 350 cells/μL (1.67; 1.04-2.70); TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r with a depressive disorder (1.77; 1.04-3.01), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.54; 1.05-2.25), and an opiate substitution program (2.76; 1.09-7.00); and ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r with female sex (3.89; 2.39-6.31) and CD4 cell counts greater than 350 cells/μL (4.50; 2.58-7.86). At 12 months, 1715 patients (87.6%) achieved viral load less than 50 copies/mL and CD4 cell counts increased by a median (interquartile range) of 173 (89-269) cells/μL. Virologic suppression was more likely with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, and CD4 increase was higher with ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r. No differences in outcome were observed among Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites. CONCLUSIONS Large differences in prescription but not in outcome were observed among study sites. A trend toward individualized cART was noted suggesting that initial cART is significantly influenced by physician's preference and patient characteristics. Our study highlights the need for evidence-based data for determining the best initial regimen for different HIV-infected persons.

Monitoring drug therapy.

Drug development has improved over recent decades, with refinements in analytical techniques, population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modelling and simulation, and new biomarkers of efficacy and tolerability. Yet this progress has not yielded improvements in individualization of treatment and monitoring, owing to various obstacles: monitoring is complex and demanding, many monitoring procedures have been instituted without critical assessment of the underlying evidence and rationale, controlled clinical trials are sparse, monitoring procedures are poorly validated and both drug manufacturers and regulatory authorities take insufficient account of the importance of monitoring. Drug concentration and effect data should be increasingly collected, analyzed, aggregated and disseminated in forms suitable for prescribers, along with efficient monitoring tools and evidence-based recommendations regarding their best use. PK-PD observations should be collected for both novel and established critical drugs and applied to observational data, in order to establish whether monitoring would be suitable. Methods for aggregating PK-PD data in systematic reviews should be devised. Observational and intervention studies to evaluate monitoring procedures are needed. Miniaturized monitoring tests for delivery at the point of care should be developed and harnessed to closed-loop regulated drug delivery systems. Intelligent devices would enable unprecedented precision in the application of critical treatments, i.e. those with life-saving efficacy, narrow therapeutic margins and high interpatient variability. Pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies and academic clinical pharmacologists share the responsibility of leading such developments, in order to ensure that patients obtain the greatest benefit and suffer the least harm from their medicines.

International consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplantation.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains one of the most common infections after solid organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and occasional mortality. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers. A panel of experts on CMV and solid organ transplant was convened by The Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society to develop evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues.

Place des antiarthrosiques symptomatiques d'action lente dans l'arthrose (sulfate de chondroïtine, glucosamine, acide hyaluronique) [Role of slow-acting anti-arthritic agents in osteoarthritis (chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine, hyaluronic acid)].

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the major causes of pain and of outpatient's clinics. 15 years ago, physiopathology of OA and its potential therapeutic targets were announced to be better understood, but the results of therapeutic trials were finally not as convincing as expected. Slow Acting Drugs (SADs) are part of the treatments evaluated in OA. Even if evidence based medicine is low, positive effects of SADs have been observed. We can reasonably propose these treatments for a short test period. It can sometimes enable us to decrease the dosage of others treatment such as NSAIDs. In any case, the physician must properly inform the patient about products available in Switzerland and must be aware of degrees of purity and costs of the products available on the intemet.

How can we teach EBM in clinical practice? : an analysis of barriers to implementation of on-the-job EBM teaching and learning.

Introduction: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) improves the quality of health care. Courses on how to teach EBM in practice are available, but knowledge does not automatically imply its application in teaching. We aimed to identify and compare barriers and facilitators for teaching EBM in clinical practice in various European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was constructed listing potential barriers and facilitators for EBM teaching in clinical practice. Answers were reported on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all being a barrier to being an insurmountable barrier. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 120 clinical EBM teachers from 11 countries. Lack of time was the strongest barrier for teaching EBM in practice (median 5). Moderate barriers were the lack of requirements for EBM skills and a pyramid hierarchy in health care management structure (median 4). In Germany, Hungary and Poland, reading and understanding articles in English was a higher barrier than in the other countries. Conclusion: Incorporation of teaching EBM in practice faces several barriers to implementation. Teaching EBM in clinical settings is most successful where EBM principles are culturally embedded and form part and parcel of everyday clinical decisions and medical practice.

Science, practice and patient needs: the work of the Plinius Maior Society.

The Plinius Maior Society is a European multinational, multidisciplinary group of clinicians and researchers in the alcoholism field, which strives for a comprehensive care concept in the management of alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. The Society, using evidence-based medicine, has developed a set of protocols, in the forms of guidelines, flow-charts, leaflets and booklets, for use as tools in research on and treatment of alcohol dependence, with a view to standardize clinical research procedures and to bridge the gap between the alcoholism researcher, practitioner and patient. These protocols or tools have been subjected to a review process during their preparation, and further comments on their validity will be integrated in their updates. Seven protocols have so far been developed, two of which, 'Guidelines on Evaluation of Treatment of Alcohol Dependence' and 'Detection and Management of Patients with Psychiatric and Alcohol Use Disorders', are aimed at the clinical researcher and specialists, whereas three others [in the form of decision trees (flow-charts)] are aimed at the general practitioner and other primary health care providers. These are entitled 'Alcohol Risk Assessment and Intervention in Primary Care', 'Withdrawal from Alcohol at Home' and 'Brief Intervention in Patients with Alcohol-Related Problems'. The remaining two tools are booklets aimed at the patient, one to support initiatives for detection of drinking problems and primary intervention, namely 'Do you have this Problem? Discuss it with your Doctor!', and the other to assist the patient in relapse prevention after the early stages of treatment, namely 'On the Way to Recovery'. The protocols for the general practitioners and patients have so far been produced in seven European languages, and, as with the Guidelines, feedback from target users will be collected and incorporated in future updates. The Society continually seeks to consider areas of clinical importance for its work and, as it enters the new millennium, it hopes to address and make a significant contribution to the most pressing problem in the management of alcohol dependence, namely relapse.

Mucosal healing and deep remission: What does it mean?

The use of specific terms under different meanings and varying definitions has always been a source of confusion in science. When we point our efforts towards an evidence based medicine for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) the same is true: Terms such as "mucosal healing" or "deep remission" as endpoints in clinical trials or treatment goals in daily patient care may contribute to misconceptions if meanings change over time or definitions are altered. It appears to be useful to first have a look at the development of terms and their definitions, to assess their intrinsic and context-independent problems and then to analyze the different relevance in present-day clinical studies and trials. The purpose of such an attempt would be to gain clearer insights into the true impact of the clinical findings behind the terms. It may also lead to a better defined use of those terms for future studies. The terms "mucosal healing" and "deep remission" have been introduced in recent years as new therapeutic targets in the treatment of IBD patients. Several clinical trials, cohort studies or inception cohorts provided data that the long term disease course is better, when mucosal healing is achieved. However, it is still unclear whether continued or increased therapeutic measures will aid or improve mucosal healing for patients in clinical remission. Clinical trials are under way to answer this question. Attention should be paid to clearly address what levels of IBD activity are looked at. In the present review article authors aim to summarize the current evidence available on mucosal healing and deep remission and try to highlight their value and position in the everyday decision making for gastroenterologists.