970 resultados para European Guidelines


Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mucormycosis is an emerging cause of infectious morbidity and mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, there are no recommendations to guide diagnosis and management. The European Conference on Infections in Leukemia assigned experts in hematology and infectious diseases to develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of mucormycosis. The guidelines were developed using the evidence criteria set forth by the American Infectious Diseases Society and the key recommendations are summarized here. In the absence of validated biomarkers, the diagnosis of mucormycosis relies on histology and/or detection of the organism by culture from involved sites with identification of the isolate at the species level (no grading). Antifungal chemotherapy, control of the underlying predisposing condition, and surgery are the cornerstones of management (level A II). Options for first-line chemotherapy of mucormycosis include liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B lipid complex (level B II). Posaconazole and combination therapy of liposomal amphotericin B or amphotericin B lipid complex with caspofungin are the options for second line-treatment (level B II). Surgery is recommended for rhinocerebral and skin and soft tissue disease (level A II). Reversal of underlying risk factors (diabetes control, reversal of neutropenia, discontinuation/taper of glucocorticosteroids, reduction of immunosuppressants, discontinuation of deferroxamine) is important in the treatment of mucormycosis (level A II). The duration of antifungal chemotherapy is not defined but guided by the resolution of all associated symptoms and findings (no grading). Maintenance therapy/secondary prophylaxis must be considered in persistently immunocompromised patients (no grading).

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND Evidence-based guidelines are needed to guide effective long-term follow-up (LTFU) of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) at risk of late adverse effects (LAEs). We aimed to ascertain the use of LTFU guidelines throughout Europe, and seek views on the need for pan-European LTFU guidelines. PROCEDURES One expert clinician from each of 44 European countries was invited to participate in an online survey. Information was sought regarding the use and content of LTFU guidelines in the respondent's centre and country, and their views about developing pan-European LTFU guidelines. RESULTS Thirty-one countries (70%) responded, including 24 of 26 full EU countries (92%). LTFU guidelines were implemented nationally in 17 countries (55%). All guidelines included recommendations about physical LAEs, specific risk groups and frequency of surveillance, and the majority about psychosocial LAEs (70%), and healthy lifestyle promotion (65%). A minority of guidelines described recommendations about transition to age-appropriate LTFU services (22%), where LTFU should be performed (22%) and by whom (30%). Most respondents (94%) agreed on the need for pan-European LTFU guidelines, specifically including recommendations about surveillance for specific physical LAEs (97%), action to be taken if a specific LAE is detected (90%), minimum requirements for LTFU (93%), transition and health promotion (both 87%). CONCLUSIONS Guidelines are not universally used throughout Europe. However, there is strong support for developing pan-European LTFU guidelines for CCS. PanCareSurFup (www.pancare.eu) will collaborate with partners to develop such guidelines, including recommendations for hitherto relatively neglected topics, such as minimum LTFU requirements, transition and health promotion.