5 results
Treatment-resistant and Multi-therapy resistant criteria for bipolar depression: A consensus definition – CORRIGENDUM
- Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, Michael Berk, Andrea Cipriani, Anthony J. Cleare, Arianna Di Florio, Daniel Dietch, John R. Geddes, Guy M. Goodwin, Heinz Grunze, Joseph F. Hayes, Ian Jones, Siegfried Kasper, Karine Macritchie, R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, Richard Morriss, Sam Nayrouz, Sofia Pappa, Jair C. Soares, Daniel J. Smith, Trisha Suppes, Peter Talbot, Eduard Vieta, Stuart Watson, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Allan H. Young, Paul R. A. Stokes
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 214 / Issue 5 / May 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 February 2019, p. 309
- Print publication:
- May 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
Treatment-resistant and multi-therapy-resistant criteria for bipolar depression: consensus definition
- Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, Michael Berk, Andrea Cipriani, Anthony J. Cleare, Arianna Di Florio, Daniel Dietch, John R. Geddes, Guy M. Goodwin, Heinz Grunze, Joseph F. Hayes, Ian Jones, Siegfried Kasper, Karine Macritchie, R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, Richard Morriss, Sam Nayrouz, Sofia Pappa, Jair C. Soares, Daniel J. Smith, Trisha Suppes, Peter Talbot, Eduard Vieta, Stuart Watson, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Allan H. Young, Paul R. A. Stokes
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 214 / Issue 1 / January 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 December 2018, pp. 27-35
- Print publication:
- January 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Most people with bipolar disorder spend a significant percentage of their lifetime experiencing either subsyndromal depressive symptoms or major depressive episodes, which contribute greatly to the high levels of disability and mortality associated with the disorder. Despite the importance of bipolar depression, there are only a small number of recognised treatment options available. Consecutive treatment failures can quickly exhaust these options leading to treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). Remarkably few studies have evaluated TRBD and those available lack a comprehensive definition of multi-therapy-resistant bipolar depression (MTRBD).
AimsTo reach consensus regarding threshold definitions criteria for TRBD and MTRBD.
MethodBased on the evidence of standard treatments available in the latest bipolar disorder treatment guidelines, TRBD and MTRBD criteria were agreed by a representative panel of bipolar disorder experts using a modified Delphi method.
ResultsTRBD criteria in bipolar depression was defined as failure to reach sustained symptomatic remission for 8 consecutive weeks after two different treatment trials, at adequate therapeutic doses, with at least two recommended monotherapy treatments or at least one monotherapy treatment and another combination treatment. MTRBD included the same initial definition as TRBD, with the addition of failure of at least one trial with an antidepressant, a psychological treatment and a course of electroconvulsive therapy.
ConclusionsThe proposed TRBD and MTRBD criteria may provide an important signpost to help clinicians, researchers and stakeholders in judging how and when to consider new non-standard treatments. However, some challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues were identified in the consensus process that need further evaluation and research.
Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, M.B. has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Meat and Livestock Board, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma, Servier, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Eli Lilly, Grunbiotics, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Merck, Mylan, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. A.J.C. has in the past 3 years received honoraria for speaking from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck, honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Janssen, Lundbeck and LivaNova and research grant support from Lundbeck. G.M.G. holds shares in P1Vital and has served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Allergan, Angelini, Compass pathways, MSD, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Medscape, Minervra, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier, Shire and Sun Pharma. J.G. has received research funding from National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Wellcome. H.G. received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Genericon, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. R.H.M.-W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Liva Nova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. R.M. has received research support from Big White Wall, Electromedical Products, Johnson and Johnson, Magstim and P1Vital. S.N. received honoraria from Lundbeck, Jensen and Otsuka. J.C.S. has received funds for research from Alkermes, Pfizer, Allergan, J&J, BMS and been a speaker or consultant for Astellas, Abbott, Sunovion, Sanofi. S.W has, within the past 3 years, attended advisory boards for Sunovion and LivaNova and has undertaken paid lectures for Lundbeck. D.J.S. has received honoraria from Lundbeck. T.S. has reported grants from Pathway Genomics, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Palo Alto Health Sciences; consulting fees from Sunovion Pharamaceuticals Inc.; honoraria from Medscape Education, Global Medical Education and CMEology; and royalties from Jones and Bartlett, UpToDate and Hogrefe Publishing. S.P. has served as a consultant or speaker for Janssen, and Sunovion. P.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. E.V. received grants/ research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AB-Biotics, Allergan, Angelini, Dainippon Sumitomo, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka and Sunovion. L.N.Y. has received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Allergan, Alkermes, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Teva and Valeant. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has also previously received funding for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth. P.R.A.S. has received research funding support from Corcept Therapeutics Inc. Corcept Therapeutics Inc fully funded attendance at their internal conference in California USA and all related expenses. He has received grant funding from the Medical Research Council UK for a collaborative study with Janssen Research and Development LLC. Janssen Research and Development LLC are providing non-financial contributions to support this study. P.R.A.S. has received a presentation fee from Indivior and an advisory board fee from LivaNova.
Reducing Inappropriate Urinary Catheter Use in the Emergency Department: Comparing Two Collaborative Structures
- M. Todd Greene, Mohamad G. Fakih, Sam R. Watson, David Ratz, Sanjay Saint
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 39 / Issue 1 / January 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 December 2017, pp. 77-84
- Print publication:
- January 2018
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
BACKGROUND
Urinary catheters, many of which are placed in the emergency department (ED) setting, are often inappropriate, and they are associated with infectious and noninfectious complications. Although several studies evaluating the effect of interventions have focused on reducing catheter use in the ED setting, the organizational contexts within which these interventions were implemented have not been compared.
METHODSA total of 18 hospitals in the Ascension health system (ie, system-based hospitals) and 16 hospitals in the state of Michigan (ie, state-based hospitals led by the Michigan Health and Hospital Association) implemented ED interventions focused on reducing urinary catheter use. Data on urinary catheter placement in the ED, indications for catheter use, and presence of physician order for catheter placement were collected for interventions in both hospital types. Multilevel negative binomial regression was used to compare the system-based versus state-based interventions.
RESULTSA total of 13,215 patients (889 with catheters) from the system-based intervention were compared to 12,104 patients (718 with catheters) from the state-based intervention. Statistically significant and sustainable reductions in urinary catheter placement (incidence rate ratio, 0.79; P=.02) and improvements in appropriate use of urinary catheters (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; P=.004) in the ED were observed in the system-based intervention, compared to the state-based intervention. Differences by collaborative structure in changes in presence of physician order for urinary catheter placement (OR, 1.14; P=.60) were not observed.
CONCLUSIONSAn ED intervention consisting of establishing institutional guidelines for appropriate catheter placement and identifying clinical champions to promote adherence was associated with reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use under a system-based collaborative structure.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:77–84
Eliminating Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections: A National Patient Safety Imperative
- Sean M. Berenholtz, Lisa H. Lubomski, Kristina Weeks, Christine A. Goeschel, Jill A. Marsteller, Julius C. Pham, Melinda D. Sawyer, David A. Thompson, Bradford D. Winters, Sara E. Cosgrove, Ting Yang, Thomas A. Louis, Barbara Meyer Lucas, Christine T. George, Sam R. Watson, Mariana I. Albert-Lesher, Justin R. St. Andre, John R. Combes, Deborah Bohr, Stephen C. Hines, James B. Battles, Peter J. Pronovost, on behalf of the On the CUSP: Stop BSI programa
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 35 / Issue 1 / January 2014
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 May 2016, pp. 56-62
- Print publication:
- January 2014
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background.
Several studies demonstrating that central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are preventable prompted a national initiative to reduce the incidence of these infections.
Methods.We conducted a collaborative cohort study to evaluate the impact of the national “On the CUSP: Stop BSI” program on CLABSI rates among participating adult intensive care units (ICUs). The program goal was to achieve a unit-level mean CLABSI rate of less than 1 case per 1,000 catheter-days using standardized definitions from the National Healthcare Safety Network. Multilevel Poisson regression modeling compared infection rates before, during, and up to 18 months after the intervention was implemented.
Results.A total of 1,071 ICUs from 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, reporting 27,153 ICU-months and 4,454,324 catheter-days of data, were included in the analysis. The overall mean CLABSI rate significantly decreased from 1.96 cases per 1,000 catheter-days at baseline to 1.15 at 16–18 months after implementation. CLABSI rates decreased during all observation periods compared with baseline, with adjusted incidence rate ratios steadily decreasing to 0.57 (95% confidence intervals, 0.50–0.65) at 16–18 months after implementation.
Conclusion.Coincident with the implementation of the national “On the CUSP: Stop BSI” program was a significant and sustained decrease in CLABSIs among a large and diverse cohort of ICUs, demonstrating an overall 43% decrease and suggesting the majority of ICUs in the United States can achieve additional reductions in CLABSI rates.
Collaborative Cohort Study of an Intervention to Reduce Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in the Intensive Care Unit
- Part of
- Sean M. Berenholtz, Julius C. Pham, David A. Thompson, Dale M. Needham, Lisa H. Lubomski, Robert C. Hyzy, Robert Welsh, Sara E. Cosgrove, J. Bryan Sexton, Elizabeth Colantuoni, Sam R. Watson, Christine A. Goeschel, Peter J. Pronovost
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 32 / Issue 4 / April 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 305-314
- Print publication:
- April 2011
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective.
To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention on compliance with evidence-based therapies and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rates.
Design.Collaborative cohort before-after study.
Setting.Intensive care units (ICUs) predominantly in Michigan.
Interventions.We implemented a multifaceted intervention to improve compliance with 5 evidence-based recommendations for mechanically ventilated patients and to prevent VAP. A standardized CDC definition of VAP was used and maintained at each site, and data on the number of VAPs and ventilator-days were obtained from the hospital's infection preventionists. Baseline data were reported and postimplementation data were reported for 30 months. VAP rates (in cases per 1,000 ventilator-days) were calculated as the proportion of ventilator-days per quarter in which patients received all 5 therapies in the ventilator care bundle. Two interventions to improve safety culture and communication were implemented first.
Results.One hundred twelve ICUs reporting 3,228 ICU-months and 550,800 ventilator-days were included. The overall median VAP rate decreased from 5.5 cases (mean, 6.9 cases) per 1,000 ventilator-days at baseline to 0 cases (mean, 3.4 cases) at 16–18 months after implementation (P < .001) and 0 cases (mean, 2.4 cases) at 28-30 months after implementation (P < .001). Compared to baseline, VAP rates decreased during all observation periods, with incidence rate ratios of 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.41–0.64) at 16–18 months after implementation and 0.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.24–0.34) at 28–30 months after implementation. Compliance with evidence-based therapies increased from 32% at baseline to 75% at 16–18 months after implementation (P < .001) and 84% at 28–30 months after implementation (P < .001).
Conclusions.A multifaceted intervention was associated with an increased use of evidence-based therapies and a substantial (up to 71%) and sustained (up to 2.5 years) decrease in VAP rates.