Dyslipidemia: evidence of efficacy of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment in the elderly

The clinical decision to control risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the elderly takes the followings into consideration: (1) the elderly life expectancy; (2) the elderly biological age and functional capacity; (3) the role of cardiovascular disease in the elderly group; (4) the prevalence of risk factors in the elderly; and (5) The effectiveness of treatment of risk factors in the elderly. A large number of studies showed the efficacy of secondary and primary prevention of dyslipidemia in the elderly. However, the only trial that included patients over 80 years was the Heart Protection Study (HPS). Statins are considered the first line therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Because lifestyle changes are very difficult to achieve, doctors in general tend to prescribe many drugs to control cardiovascular risk factors. However, healthy food consumption remains a cornerstone in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention and should be implemented by everyone.

The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of procedural pain in preterm and term neonates. A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: Neonates in a neonatal intensive care unit are exposed to a high number of painful procedures. Since repeated and sustained pain can have consequences for the neurological and behaviour-oriented development of the newborn, the greatest attention needs to be paid to systematic pain management in neonatology. Non-pharmacological treatment methods are being increasingly discussed with regard to pain prevention and relief either alone or in combination with pharmacological treatment. AIMS: To identify effective non-pharmacological interventions with regard to procedural pain in neonates. METHODS: A literature search was conducted via the MedLine, CINAHL, Cochrane Library databases and complemented by a handsearch. The literature search covered the period from 1984 to 2004. Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria by two independent reviewers and methodological quality was assessed. RESULTS: 13 randomised controlled studies and two meta-analyses were taken into consideration with regard to the question of current nursing practice of non-pharmacological pain management methods. The selected interventions were "non-nutritive sucking", "music", "swaddling", "positioning", "olfactory and multisensorial stimulation", "kangaroo care" and "maternal touch". There is evidence that the methods of "non-nutritive sucking", "swaddling" and "facilitated tucking" do have a pain-alleviating effect on neonates. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the non-pharmacological interventions have an evident favourable effect on pulse rate, respiration and oxygen saturation, on the reduction of motor activity, and on the excitation states after invasive measures. However, unambiguous evidence of this still remains to be presented. Further research should emphasise the use of validated pain assessment instruments for the evaluation of the pain-alleviating effect of non-pharmacological interventions.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments). Patients who have received treatments such as cranial radiation for central nervous system tumours or metastases are not the focus of this review and will be excluded.

A second objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for improving non-cognitive outcomes e.g. quality of life among this population.

Thirdly, we will extract and analyse data regarding the duration of intervention effects.

Fourthly, we will examine each study to identify safety as an outcome and incorporate information on intervention safety where possible. Evidence for the review will be based on data from randomised trials.

Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research

Background: Critically ill patients have an increased risk of developing delirium during their intensive care stay.To date, pharmacological interventions have not been shown to be effective for delirium management but non-pharmacological interventions have shown some promise. The aim of this systematic review is to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence or the duration of delirium in critically ill patients.

Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, AMED, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library.We will include studies of critically ill adults and children. We will include randomised trials and controlled trials which measure the effectiveness of one or more non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence or duration ofdelirium in critically ill patients. We will also include qualitative studies that provide an insight into patients and their families’ experiences of delirium and non-pharmacological interventions. Two independent reviewers will assess studies for eligibility, extract data and appraise quality. We will conduct meta-analyses if possible or present results narratively.Qualitative studies will also be reviewed by two independent reviewers, and a specially designed quality assessment tool incorporating the CASP framework and the POPAY framework will be used to assess quality.

Discussion: Although non-pharmacological interventions have been studied in populations outside of intensive care units and multicomponent interventions have successfully reduced incidence and duration of delirium, no systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions specifically targeting delirium in critically ill patients have been undertaken to date. This systematic review will provide evidence for the development of a multicomponent intervention for delirium management of critically ill patients that can be tested in a subsequent multicentre randomised trial.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.

Non-pharmacological interventions in secondary schizophrenia

Schizophrenia may not be a single disease, but the result of a diverse set of related conditions. Modern neuroscience is beginning to reveal some of the genetic and environmental underpinnings of schizophrenia; however, an approach less well travelled is to examine the medical disorders that produce symptoms resembling schizophrenia. This book is the first major attempt to bring together the diseases that produce what has been termed 'secondary schizophrenia'. International experts from diverse backgrounds ask the questions: does this medical disorder, or drug, or condition cause psychosis? If yes, does it resemble schizophrenia? What mechanisms form the basis of this relationship? What implications does this understanding have for aetiology and treatment? The answers are a feast for clinicians and researchers of psychosis and schizophrenia. They mark the next step in trying to meet the most important challenge to modern neuroscience – understanding and conquering this most mysterious of human diseases.

Cost implications of specific and non-specific treatment for young persons at ultra high risk of developing a first episode of psychosis

Aim: Costs associated with mental health treatment for young persons at 'ultra' high risk (UHR) of developing a psychotic disorder have not previously been reported. This paper reports cost implications of providing psychological and pharmacological intervention for individuals at UHR for psychosis compared with minimal psychological treatment.

Method: Mental health service costs associated with a randomized controlled trial of two treatments (Specific Preventive Intervention: SPI and Needs-Based Intervention: NBI) for UHR young persons were estimated and compared at three time points: treatment phase, short-term follow up and medium-term follow up.

Results: Although the SPI group incurred significantly higher treatment costs than the NBI group over the treatment phase, they incurred significantly lower outpatient treatment costs over the longer term.

Conclusion: This study indicates that specific interventions designed to treat young persons who are identified as being at UHR of psychosis might be associated with some cost savings compared with non-specific interventions.

Non-pharmacological interventions on cognitive functions in older people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

A review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease encompasses a group of hypersensitivity disorders which primarily affect the conjunctiva and its prevalence is increasing. It is estimated to affect 8% of patients attending optometric practice but is poorly managed and rarely involves ophthalmic assessment. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common form of allergic eye disease (90%), followed by perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC; 5%). Both are type 1 IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions where mast cells play an important role in pathophysiology. The signs and symptoms are similar but SAC occurs periodically whereas PAC occurs year round. Despite being a relatively mild condition, the effects on the quality of life can be profound and therefore they demand attention. Primary management of SAC and PAC involves avoidance strategies depending on the responsible allergen(s) to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction. Cooled tear supplements and cold compresses may help bring relief. Pharmacological agents may become necessary as it is not possible to completely avoid the allergen(s). There are a wide range of anti-allergic medications available, such as mast cell stabilisers, antihistamines and dual-action agents. Severe cases refractory to conventional treatment require anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators or immunotherapy. Additional qualifications are required to gain access to these medications, but entry-level optometrists must offer advice and supportive therapy. Based on current evidence, the efficacy of anti-allergic medications appears equivocal so prescribing should relate to patient preference, dosing and cost. More studies with standardised methodologies are necessary elicit the most effective anti-allergic medications but those with dual-actions are likely to be first line agents.

A review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease encompasses a group of hypersensitivity disorders which primarily affect the conjunctiva and its prevalence is increasing. It is estimated to affect 8% of patients attending optometric practice but is poorly managed and rarely involves ophthalmic assessment. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common form of allergic eye disease (90%), followed by perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC; 5%). Both are type 1 IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions where mast cells play an important role in pathophysiology. The signs and symptoms are similar but SAC occurs periodically whereas PAC occurs year round. Despite being a relatively mild condition, the effects on the quality of life can be profound and therefore they demand attention. Primary management of SAC and PAC involves avoidance strategies depending on the responsible allergen(s) to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction. Cooled tear supplements and cold compresses may help bring relief. Pharmacological agents may become necessary as it is not possible to completely avoid the allergen(s). There are a wide range of anti-allergic medications available, such as mast cell stabilisers, antihistamines and dual-action agents. Severe cases refractory to conventional treatment require anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators or immunotherapy. Additional qualifications are required to gain access to these medications, but entry-level optometrists must offer advice and supportive therapy. Based on current evidence, the efficacy of anti-allergic medications appears equivocal so prescribing should relate to patient preference, dosing and cost. More studies with standardised methodologies are necessary elicit the most effective anti-allergic medications but those with dual-actions are likely to be first line agents. © 2011 British Contact Lens Association.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches for Pain Management in Sickle Cell Disease: Development of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention

Background: Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) is a genetic hematological disorder that affects more than 7 million people globally (NHLBI, 2009). It is estimated that 50% of adults with SCD experience pain on most days, with 1/3 experiencing chronic pain daily (Smith et al., 2008). Persons with SCD also experience higher levels of pain catastrophizing (feelings of helplessness, pain rumination and magnification) than other chronic pain conditions, which is associated with increases in pain intensity, pain behavior, analgesic consumption, frequency and duration of hospital visits, and with reduced daily activities (Sullivan, Bishop, & Pivik, 1995; Keefe et al., 2000; Gil et al., 1992 & 1993). Therefore effective interventions are needed that can successfully be used manage pain and pain-related outcomes (e.g., pain catastrophizing) in persons with SCD. A review of the literature demonstrated limited information regarding the feasibility and efficacy of non-pharmacological approaches for pain in persons with SCD, finding an average effect size of .33 on pain reduction across measurable non-pharmacological studies. Second, a prospective study on persons with SCD that received care for a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC; N = 95) found: (1) high levels of patient reported depression (29%) and anxiety (34%), and (2) that unemployment was significantly associated with increased frequency of acute care encounters and hospital admissions per person. Research suggests that one promising category of non-pharmacological interventions for managing both physical and affective components of pain are Mindfulness-based Interventions (MBIs; Thompson et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2013). The primary goal of this dissertation was thus to develop and test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain.

Methods: First, a telephonic MBI was developed through an informal process that involved iterative feedback from patients, clinical experts in SCD and pain management, social workers, psychologists, and mindfulness clinicians. Through this process, relevant topics and skills were selected to adapt in each MBI session. Second, a pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the telephonic MBI for pain catastrophizing in persons with SCD and chronic pain. Acceptability and feasibility were determined by assessment of recruitment, attrition, dropout, and refusal rates (including refusal reasons), along with semi-structured interviews with nine randomly selected patients at the end of study. Participants completed assessments at baseline, Week 1, 3, and 6 to assess efficacy of the intervention on decreasing pain catastrophizing and other pain-related outcomes.

Results: A telephonic MBI is feasible and acceptable for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Seventy-eight patients with SCD and chronic pain were approached, and 76% (N = 60) were enrolled and randomized. The MBI attendance rate, approximately 57% of participants completing at least four mindfulness sessions, was deemed acceptable, and participants that received the telephonic MBI described it as acceptable, easy to access, and consume in post-intervention interviews. The amount of missing data was undesirable (MBI condition, 40%; control condition, 25%), but fell within the range of expected missing outcome data for a RCT with multiple follow-up assessments. Efficacy of the MBI on pain catastrophizing could not be determined due to small sample size and degree of missing data, but trajectory analyses conducted for the MBI condition only trended in the right direction and pain catastrophizing approached statistically significance.

Conclusion: Overall results showed that at telephonic group-based MBI is acceptable and feasible for persons with SCD and chronic pain. Though the study was not able to determine treatment efficacy nor powered to detect a statistically significant difference between conditions, participants (1) described the intervention as acceptable, and (2) the observed effect sizes for the MBI condition demonstrated large effects of the MBI on pain catastrophizing, mental health, and physical health. Replication of this MBI study with a larger sample size, active control group, and additional assessments at the end of each week (e.g., Week 1 through Week 6) is needed to determine treatment efficacy. Many lessons were learned that will guide the development of future studies including which MBI strategies were most helpful, methods to encourage continued participation, and how to improve data capture.

Non-pharmacological interventions for breathlessness management in patients with lung cancer : A systematic review

The aim is to review the published scientific literature for studies evaluating nonpharmacological interventions for breathlessness management in patients with lung cancer. The following selection criteria were used to systematically search the literature: studies were to be published research or systematic reviews; they were to be published in English and from 1990 to 2007; the targeted populations were adult patients with dyspnoea/breathlessness associated with lung cancer; and the study reported on the outcomes from use of non-pharmacological strategies for breathlessness. This review retrieved five studies that met all inclusion criteria. All the studies reported the benefits of non-pharmacological interventions in improving breathlessness regardless of differences in clinical contexts, components of programmes and methods for delivery. Analysis of the available evidence suggests that tailored instructions delivered by nurses with sufficient training and supervision may have some benefits over other delivery approaches. Based on the results, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended as effective adjunctive strategies in managing breathlessness for patients with lung cancer. In order to refine such interventions, future research should seek to explore the core components of such approaches that are critical to achieving optimal outcomes, the contexts in which the interventions are most effective, and to evaluate the relative benefits of different methods for delivering such interventions.

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in improving psychological outcomes for heart transplant recipients : a systematic review

Background Post-heart transplant psychological distress may both directly hinder physiological health as well as indirectly impact on clinical outcomes by increasing unhealthy behaviours, such as immunosuppression non-adherence. Reducing psychological distress for heart transplant recipients is therefore vitally important, in order to improve patients’ overall health and well-being but also clinical outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality. Evidence from other populations suggests that non-pharmacological interventions may be an effective strategy. Aim To appraise the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on psychological outcomes after heart transplant. Method A systematic review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that involved any non-pharmacological intervention for heart transplant recipients were included, provided that data on psychological outcomes were reported. Multiple electronic databases were searched for published and unpublished studies and reference lists of retrieved studies were scrutinized for further primary research. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction tool. Included studies were assessed by two independent reviewers using standardised critical appraisal instruments. Results Three studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which involved only 125 heart transplant recipients. Two studies reported on exercise programs. One study reported a web-based psychosocial intervention. While psychological outcomes significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for the recipients who received the interventions, between-group comparisons were not reported. The methodological quality of the studies was judged to be poor. Conclusions Further research is required, as we found there is insufficient evidence available to draw conclusions for or against the use of non-pharmacological interventions after heart transplant.