ESH-ESC guidelines for the management of hypertension.

The following is a brief statement of the 2003 European Society of Hypertension (ESH)-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension.The continuous relationship between the level of blood pressure and cardiovascular risk makes the definition of hypertension arbitrary. Since risk factors cluster in hypertensive individuals, risk stratification should be made and decision about the management should not be based on blood pressure alone, but also according to the presence or absence of other risk factors, target organ damage, diabetes, and cardiovascular or renal damage, as well as on other aspects of the patient's personal, medical and social situation. Blood pressure values measured in the doctor's office or the clinic should commonly be used as reference. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may have clinical value, when considerable variability of office blood pressure is found over the same or different visits, high office blood pressure is measured in subjects otherwise at low global cardiovascular risk, there is marked discrepancy between blood pressure values measured in the office and at home, resistance to drug treatment is suspected, or research is involved. Secondary hypertension should always be investigated.The primary goal of treatment of patient with high blood pressure is to achieve the maximum reduction in long-term total risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This requires treatment of all the reversible factors identified, including smoking, dislipidemia, or diabetes, and the appropriate management of associated clinical conditions, as well as treatment of the raised blood pressure per se. On the basis of current evidence from trials, it can be recommended that blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic, be intensively lowered at least below 140/90 mmHg and to definitely lower values, if tolerated, in all hypertensive patients, and below 130/80 mmHg in diabetics.Lifestyle measures should be instituted whenever appropriate in all patients, including subjects with high normal blood pressure and patients who require drug treatment. The purpose is to lower blood pressure and to control other risk factors and clinical conditions present.In most, if not all, hypertensive patients, therapy should be started gradually, and target blood pressure achieved progressively through several weeks. To reach target blood pressure, it is likely that a large proportion of patients will require combination therapy with more than one agent. The main benefits of antihypertensive therapy are due to lowering of blood pressure per se. There is also evidence that specific drug classes may differ in some effect or in special groups of patients. The choice of drugs will be influenced by many factors, including previous experience of the patient with antihypertensive agents, cost of drugs, risk profile, presence or absence of target organ damage, clinical cardiovascular or renal disease or diabetes, patient's preference.

Treatment deviating from guidelines does not influence status epilepticus prognosis.

Status epilepticus (SE) prognosis is related to nonmodifiable factors (age, etiology), but the exact role of drug treatment is unclear. This study was undertaken to address the prognostic role of treatment adherence to guidelines (TAG). We prospectively studied over 26 months a cohort of adults with incident SE (excluding postanoxic). TAG was assessed in terms of drug doses (± 30 % of recommendations) and medication sequence; its prognostic impact on mortality and return to baseline conditions was adjusted for etiology, SE severity [Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS)], and comorbidities. Of 225 patients, 26 (12 %) died and 82 (36 %) were discharged with a new handicap; TAG was observed in 142 (63 %). On univariate analysis, age, etiology, SE severity, and comorbidities were significantly related to outcome, while TAG was associated with neither outcome nor likelihood of SE control. Logistic regression for mortality identified etiology [odds ratio (OR) 18.8, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.3-82.8] and SE severity (STESS ≥ 3; OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.2-2.4) as independent predictors, and for lack of return to baseline, again etiology (OR 7.4, 95 % CI 3.9-14.0) and STESS ≥ 3 (OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.4-2.2). Similar results were found for the subgroup of 116 patients with generalized-convulsive SE. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses confirmed that TAG did not improve outcome prediction. This study of a large SE cohort suggests that treatment adherence to recommendations using current medications seems to play a negligible prognostic role (class III), confirming the importance of the biological background. Awaiting further treatment trials, it appears mandatory to apply resources towards identification of new therapeutic approaches.

Directives pratiques de la Société européenne d'hypertension sur la mesure de la pression artérielle à domicile [Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for home blood pressure measurement].

Self-measurement of blood pressure at home is increasingly used in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of hypertension. This technique allows multiple measurements of blood pressure away from the clinical setting, making it possible to improve the evaluation of cardiovascular risk. Recently new guidelines on the use of self-measured blood pressure have been made available by the European Society of Hypertension, as summarized in the present paper.

La dépression majeure en hôpital général: adaptation et mise en oeuvre de recommandations pour la pratique clinique [Major depression in the general hospital: adaptation and implementation of guidelines]

Major depression IMD) is highly prevalent in the general hospital and adds a considerable burden to affected patients, but remains under detected and under treated. In an attempt to improve this situation, existing guidelines on MD were retrieved, systematically evaluated with the instrument AGREE (Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation), and adapted to the needs of the general hospital. These guidelines were made available on intranet, and actively implemented in two wards, where their impact on clinical practice was evaluated.

La prise en charge de l'hyper- tension artériette par des médecins en formation suit-elle les recommandations actuettes [Are the guidelines for the management of hypertensive patients followed by primary care residents and fellows?]

Numerous international guidelines are published which define how hypertensive patients should be managed. Are these guidelines followed and applicable? We have assessed the quality of management of 225 hypertensive ambulatory patients followed by young fellows in teaching for primary care medicine. The control rate defined by a blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg was 32,4%. In the last three visits, 60% of hypertensive patients had a blood pressure measurement. 79% of blood pressure readings ended with 0 or 5. Blood pressure control was identical whatever the comorbidities. In conclusion, the quality of management of hypertensive patients by in teaching fellow could potentially be improved. The actual recommendations are limited in their application. The control of high risk vascular patients is not better than those with a lower risk.

Awareness of human immunodeficiency virus screening guidelines is low in emergency departments of western Switzerland.

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence in Switzerland is 0.4% and 30% of HIV patients are diagnosed with CD4 counts <200 cells/microliter. In 2010, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (SFOP) published updated guidelines regarding Physician- Initiated Counseling and Testing (PICT) for HIV. In the new guidelines, when acute HIV infection is suspected or HIV is among the differential diagnoses, an HIV test is performed without risk assessment nor prior counseling, unless the patient specifically refuses it. Counseling and verbal consent are still required when the patient asks for an HIV test or belongs to a high risk group. Whist HIV testing in the emergency departments (ED) is recommended, only 1% of patients are currently screened. Lack of awareness among physicians has been cited in the literature as the first barrier to guideline implementation. Objectives: To test if physicians working in EDs of 5 large teaching hospitals in western Switzerland, admitting 175,000 patients / year, were aware of the updated SFOP guidelines. Methods: A survey was delivered to 167 ED physicians in the summer of 2011. The survey consisted of 26 vignettes designed to test whether physicians would request an HIV test according to the new guidelines and if they knew when the PICT strategy was allowed or counseling required. Finally, physicians were asked the number of HIV tests they had requested in the previous 4 weeks, and if they were aware of the new HIV guidelines. Results are presented as mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range (IQR), or as proportions; Student's t test was used to compare continuous variables; Results: 143 physicians returned the survey (86%); mean age was 32 ± 8 years, and median postgraduate experience of 6 years (IQR 3-12); 52% were male and 17% were attendings. The percentage of correct responses was 60 ± 13% with no difference between attendings and residents (p = 0.31); 2 of the 3 questions with the lowest scores were failure to recognize situations in which HIV testing was indicated, and the third one a failure to recognize acute HIV infection. 82% of physicians were not aware of the new guidelines. The median number of test requests was 1 (IQR 0-2, range 1-10). Conclusion: ED physicians are not aware of current HIV screening guidelines published by the SFOP, and rarely perform HIV tests. An information campaign is required if ED physicians are expected to play a significant role in the reduction of undiagnosed HIV patients.

Targeted therapy against multi-resistant bacteria in leukemic and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: guidelines of the 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL-4, 2011).

The detection of multi-resistant bacterial pathogens, particularly those to carbapenemases, in leukemic and stem cell transplant patients forces the use of old or non-conventional agents as the only remaining treatment options. These include colistin/polymyxin B, tigecycline, fosfomycin and various anti-gram-positive agents. Data on the use of these agents in leukemic patients are scanty, with only linezolid subjected to formal trials. The Expert Group of the 4(th) European Conference on Infections in Leukemia has developed guidelines for their use in these patient populations. Targeted therapy should be based on (i) in vitro susceptibility data, (ii) knowledge of the best treatment option against the particular species or phenotype of bacteria, (iii) pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, and (iv) careful assessment of the risk-benefit balance. For infections due to resistant Gram-negative bacteria, these agents should be preferably used in combination with other agents that remain active in vitro, because of suboptimal efficacy (e.g., tigecycline) and the risk of emergent resistance (e.g., fosfomycin). The paucity of new antibacterial drugs in the near future should lead us to limit the use of these drugs to situations where no alternative exists.

Das GRADE-System: ein internationaler Ansatz zur Vereinheitlichung der Graduierung von Evidenz und Empfehlungen in Leitlinien. [The GRADE System: an international approach to standardize the graduation of evidence and recommendations in guidelines]

Clinical practice guidelines have become an important source of information to support clinicians in the management of individual patients. However, current guideline methods have limitations that include the lack of separating the quality of evidence from the strength of recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, an international collaboration of guideline developers, methodologists, and clinicians have developed a system that addresses these shortcomings. Core elements include transparent methodology for grading the quality of evidence, the distinction between quality of the evidence and strength of a recommendation, an explicit balancing of benefits and harms of health care interventions, an explicit recognition of the values and preferences that underlie recommendations. The GRADE system has been piloted in various practice settings to ensure that it captures the complexity involved in evidence assessment and grading recommendations while maintaining simplicity and practicality. Many guideline organizations and medical societies have endorsed the system and adopted it for their guideline processes.