Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.

https://www.who.int/respiratory/copd/GOLD_WR_06.pdf

Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary.

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Preamble and Transition to ACC/AHA Guidelines to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk S2

The goals of the …

/pdf/2013-acc-aha-guideline-on-the-treatment-of-blood-cholesterol-pvngcav7fq.pdf

2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

Author(s): Go, Alan S; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Roger, Veronique L; Benjamin, Emelia J; Berry, Jarett D; Borden, William B; Bravata, Dawn M; Dai, Shifan; Ford, Earl S; Fox, Caroline S; Franco, Sheila; Fullerton, Heather J; Gillespie, Cathleen; Hailpern, Susan M; Heit, John A; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Kissela, Brett M; Kittner, Steven J; Lackland, Daniel T; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Magid, David; Marcus, Gregory M; Marelli, Ariane; Matchar, David B; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Mussolino, Michael E; Nichol, Graham; Paynter, Nina P; Schreiner, Pamela J; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Wong, Nathan D; Woo, Daniel; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2013 Update A Report From the American Heart Association

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Background The questions patients are asked about their preferences with regard to life-sustaining treatment usually focus on specific interventions, but the outcomes of treatment and their likelihood affect patients' preferences. Methods We administered a questionnaire about treatment preferences to 226 persons who were 60 years of age or older and who had a limited life expectancy due to cancer, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study participants were asked whether they would want to receive a given treatment, first when the outcome was known with certainty and then with different likelihoods of an adverse outcome. The outcome without treatment was specified as death from the underlying disease. Results The burden of treatment (i.e., the length of the hospital stay, extent of testing, and invasiveness of interventions), the outcome, and the likelihood of the outcome all influenced treatment preferences. For a low-burden treatment with the restoration of current hea...

Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients

The most common chronic condition experienced by adults is multimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple chronic diseases or conditions. In patients with coronary disease, for example, it is the sole condition in only 17% of cases.1 Almost 3 in 4 individuals aged 65 years and older have multiple chronic conditions, as do 1 in 4 adults younger than 65 years who receive health care.2 Adults with multiple chronic conditions are the major users of health care services at all adult ages, and account for more than two-thirds of health care spending.2

Despite the predominance of multiple chronic conditions, however, reimbursement remains linked to discrete International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes, none of which are for multimorbidity or multiple chronic conditions. Specialists are responsible for a single disease among the patient’s many. Quality measurement largely ignores the unintended consequences of applying the multiple interventions necessary to adhere to every applicable measure. Uncertain benefit and potential harm of numerous simultaneous treatments, worsening of a single disease by treatment of a coexisting one, and treatment burden arising from following several disease guidelines are the well-documented challenges of clinical decision making for patients with multiple chronic conditions.3,4

To ensure safe and effective care for adults with multiple chronic conditions, particularly the millions of baby boomers entering their years of declining health and increasing health service use, health care must shift its current focus on managing innumerable individual diseases. To align with the clinical reality of multimorbidity, care should evolve from a disease orientation to a patient goal orientation, focused on maximizing the health goals of individual patients with unique sets of risks, conditions, and priorities. Patient goal–oriented health care involves ascertaining a patient’s health outcome priorities and goals, identifying the diseases and other modifiable factors impeding these goals, calculating and communicating the likely effect of alternative treatments on these goals, and guiding shared decision making informed by this information.4

https://www.commed.vcu.edu/IntroPH/Chronic%20Diseases/JAMAMultimorb.pdf

Designing health care for the most common chronic condition--multimorbidity.

The traditional objective of advance care planning has been to have patients make treatment decisions in advance so that clinicians can attempt to provide care consistent with their goals. The authors contend that the objective for advance care planning ought to be the preparation of patients and surrogates to participate with clinicians in making the best possible in-the-moment medical decisions. They provide practical steps for clinicians to help patients and surrogate decision makers achieve this objective in the outpatient setting. Preparation for in-the-moment decision making shifts the focus from having patients make premature decisions based on incomplete information to preparing them and their surrogates for the types of decisions and conflicts they may encounter when they do have to make in-the-moment decisions. Advance directives, although important, are just one piece of information to be used at the time of decision making.

/pdf/redefining-the-planning-in-advance-care-planning-preparing-2qmv3nppye.pdf

Redefining the Planning in Advance Care Planning: Preparing for End-of-Life Decision Making

OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence regarding the health outcomes associated with polypharmacy, defined as number of prescribed medications, in older community-dwelling persons. DESIGN: Systematic review of MEDLINE (OvidSP 1946 to May, Week 3, 2014). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Observational studies examining health outcomes according to number of prescription medications taken. MEASUREMENTS: Association between number of medications and health outcomes. Because of the importance of comorbidity as a potential confounder of the relationship between polypharmacy and health outcomes, articles were assessed regarding the quality of their adjustment for confounding. RESULTS: Of the 50 studies identified, the majority that were rated good in terms of their adjustment for comorbidity demonstrated relationships between polypharmacy and a range of outcomes, including falls, fall outcomes, fall risk factors, adverse drug events, hospitalization, mortality, and measures of function and cognition. However, a number of these studies failed to demonstrate associations, as did a substantial proportion of studies rated fair or poor. CONCLUSION: Data are mixed regarding the relationship between polypharmacy, considered in terms of number of medications, and adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older persons. Because of the challenge of confounding, randomized controlled trials of medication discontinuation may provide more-definitive evidence regarding this relationship than observational studies can provide. Language: en

/pdf/health-outcomes-associated-with-polypharmacy-in-community-1sc96j9bdh.pdf

Health Outcomes Associated with Polypharmacy in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review

https://www.commed.vcu.edu/IntroPH/Chronic%20Diseases/cdeendofera.pdf

Terri R. Fried

Papers

Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients

Designing health care for the most common chronic condition--multimorbidity.

Redefining the Planning in Advance Care Planning: Preparing for End-of-Life Decision Making

Health Outcomes Associated with Polypharmacy in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review

The end of the disease era.