Previous Guidelines (previous + guideline)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection,The Maastricht 2-2000 Consensus Report

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 2 2002
P. Malfertheiner
Significant progress and new insights have been gained in the 4 years since the first Maastricht Consensus Report, necessitating an update of the original guidelines. To achieve this, the European Helicobacter Pylori Study Group organized a meeting of specialists and experts from around the world, representatives from National Gastroenterology Societies and general practitioners from Europe to establish updated guidelines on the current management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The meeting took place on 21,22 September 2000. A ,test and treat' approach is recommended in adult patients under the age of 45 years (the age cut-off may vary locally) presenting in primary care with persistent dyspepsia, having excluded those with predominantly gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with alarm symptoms. Diagnosis of infection should be by urea breath test or stool antigen test. As in the previous guidelines, the eradication of H. pylori is strongly recommended in all patients with peptic ulcer, including those with complications, in those with low-grade gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, in those with atrophic gastritis and following gastric cancer resection. It is also strongly recommended in patients who are first-degree relatives of gastric cancer patients and according to patients' wishes after full consultation. It is advised that H. pylori eradication is considered to be an appropriate option in infected patients with functional dyspepsia, as it leads to long-term symptom improvement in a subset of patients. There was consensus that the eradication of H. pylori is not associated with the development of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in most cases, and does not exacerbate existing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. It was agreed that the eradication of H. pylori prior to the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduces the incidence of peptic ulcer, but does not enhance the healing of gastric or duodenal ulcer in patients receiving antisecretory therapy who continue to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Treatment should be thought of as a package which considers first- and second-line eradication therapies together. First-line therapy should be with triple therapy using a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate, combined with clarithromycin and amoxicillin or metronidazole. Second-line therapy should use quadruple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline. Where bismuth is not available, second-line therapy should be with proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy. If second-line quadruple therapy fails in primary care, patients should be referred to a specialist. Subsequent failures should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the specialist. In patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer, eradication therapy does not need to be followed by further antisecretory treatment. Successful eradica- tion should always be confirmed by urea breath test or an endoscopy-based test if endoscopy is clinically indicated. Stool antigen test is the alternative if urea breath test is not available. [source]


An Updated Interdisciplinary Clinical Pathway for CRPS: Report of an Expert Panel

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 1 2002
Dr. med, Michael D. Stanton-Hicks MB
Abstract: The goal of treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is to improve function, relieve pain, and achieve remission. Current guidelines recommend interdisciplinary management, emphasizing 3 core treatment elements: pain management, rehabilitation, and psychological therapy. Although the best therapeutic regimen or the ideal progression through these modalities has not yet been established, increasing evidence suggests that some cases are refractory to conservative measures and require flexible application of the various treatments as well as earlier consideration of interventions such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS). While existing treatment guidelines have attempted to address the comprehensive management of CRPS, all fail to provide guidance for contingent management in response to a sudden change in the patient's medical status. This paper reviews the current pathophysiology as it is known, reviews the purported treatments, and provides a modified clinical pathway (guideline) that attempts to expand the scope of previous guidelines. [source]


ARIA: impact of compliance

CLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY REVIEWS, Issue 1 2005
P. Van Cauwenberge
Summary Epidemiological studies show that the prevalence of asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) has increased progressively over the past two to three decades. Similarly, there is increasing evidence that asthma and rhinitis frequently co-exist in the same patients and that rhinitis is a risk factor for asthma. Although several guidelines are currently available for the diagnosis and management of AR, the earlier guidelines and their successors were not evidence based, and were developed primarily on the basis of expert opinion, but of course based on the available literature. More recently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines were published in co-operation with the World Health Organization. These guidelines are evidence based and directed towards managing co-morbid rhinitis and asthma as different manifestations of a single airway disease, rather than as two separate diseases of the nose and the lung. They recommend treatment of AR in a step-wise manner (using a combination of allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy), based on the duration and severity of disease, rather than on the basis of type of exposure (i.e seasonal, perennial, occupational), as recommended by previous guidelines. The ARIA guidelines recognize that both the availability and the cost of a particular intervention are likely to determine patient compliance, and therefore recommends a flexible approach based on availability and cost of specific interventions in different countries. Despite the availability of treatment guidelines, there is evidence that the severity of disease is often diagnosed and treated inappropriately by general practitioners (GPs), who frequently do not use a guided treatment strategy, leading to low patient satisfaction and compliance. This suggests a clear need to implement the guidelines among GPs, especially since the vast majority of patients generally trust their GPs to provide appropriate information and optimal medication for the management of their disease. [source]


Guidelines for the treatment and management of new-onset diabetes after transplantation,

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2005
Alan Wilkinson
Abstract:, Although graft and patient survival after solid organ transplantation have improved markedly in recent years, transplant recipients continue to experience an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with the general population. A number of factors are known to impact on the increased risk of CVD in this population, including hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus. Of these factors, new-onset diabetes after transplantation has been identified as one of the most important, being associated with reduced graft function and patient survival, and increased risk of graft loss. In 2003, International Consensus Guidelines on New-onset Diabetes after Transplantation were published, which aimed to establish a precise definition and diagnosis of the condition and recommend management strategies to reduce its occurrence and impact. These updated 2004 guidelines, developed in consultation with the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), extend the recommendations of the previous guidelines and encompass new-onset diabetes after kidney, liver and heart transplantation. It is hoped that adoption of these management approaches pre- and post-transplant will reduce individuals' risk of developing new-onset diabetes after transplantation as well as ameliorating the long-term impact of this serious complication. [source]