No abstract

Objective To evaluate the clinical benefit of lipid lowering drug treatment in patients with and without diabetes mellitus, for primary and secondary prevention. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane, Medline, Embase, and reference lists up to April 2004. Study selection Randomised, placebo controlled, double blind trials with a follow-up of at least three years that evaluated lipid lowering drug treatment in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data. The primary outcome was major coronary events defined as coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or myocardial revascularisation procedures. Results Twelve studies were included. Lipid lowering drug treatment was found to be at least as effective in diabetic patients as in non-diabetic patients. In primary prevention, the risk reduction for major coronary events was 21% (95% confidence interval 11% to 30%; P < 0.0001) in diabetic patients and 23% (12% to 33%; P = 0.0003) in non-diabetic patients. In secondary prevention, the corresponding risk reductions were 21% (10% to 31%; P = 0.0005) and 23% (19% to 26%; P ≤ 0.00001). However, the absolute risk difference was three times higher in secondary prevention. When results were adjusted for baseline risk, diabetic patients benefited more in both primary and secondary prevention. Blood lipids were reduced to a similar degree in both groups. Conclusions The evidence that lipid lowering drug treatment (especially statins) significantly reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetic and non-diabetic patients is strong and suggests that diabetic patients benefit more, in both primary and secondary prevention. Future research should define the threshold for treatment of these patients and the desired target lipid concentrations, especially for primary prevention.

Objective To systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.Study selection Two reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.Data synthesis The primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients' characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 test.Results 37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I 2 =79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I 2 =51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions. ConclusionsThe best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength. IntroductionPneumonia represents an important clinical condition because of its relatively high incidence (0.5% to 1.1% annually in the United Kingdom) and associated morbidity and mortality. Susceptibility is higher among elderly people (≥65 years), those with alcohol dependency, smokers, and patients with heart failure, previous stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic lung disease. [3][4][5][6] Pneumonia is a common reason for h...

Dignity therapy resulted in a beneficial effect on depression and anxiety symptoms in end-of-life care. The therapeutic benefit of dignity therapy was sustained over a 30-day period. Having established its efficacy, future trials of dignity therapy may now begin, comparing it with other psychotherapeutic approaches within the context of terminal illness.

Despite being an expensive test format, evidence suggests that the use of OSCE produces reliable results. The study also suggests that one reason for the wide-scale adoption of the OSCE and the feasibility of its use in different contexts and situations is its inherent flexibility in terms of the number of students that can be assessed, the number of examiners included, the type of patients represented and the format of the examination itself, including the length of the examination, the number and duration of stations.