treatment goals

治疗目标
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:了解肝细胞癌(HCC)的患者旅程可能会为未来的临床决策提供信息并增强患者体验。这项研究的目的是探讨肝癌患者的经验与治疗方案的关系,在整个疾病旅程中的治疗决策和治疗目标。这项研究还旨在确定早期HCC的症状和影响,中晚期肝癌。
    方法:对n=50的HCC患者和n=12的具有治疗HCC患者经验的医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)进行了60分钟的半结构化访谈。使用定向内容分析技术和混合归纳和演绎方法对访谈数据进行了分析。对患者的症状体验进行概念饱和评估。
    结果:患者将治疗决定描述为主要由HCP主导。在这项研究中,手术/切除是HCC旅程中最常见的治疗选择,大多数患者对提供给他们的治疗方案感到满意。总的来说,患者将延长总生存期(OS)和维持生活质量(QoL)作为最重要的治疗目标,诊断为晚期/不可切除的HCC患者优先考虑QoL。尽管据报道,随着HCC的进展,QoL变得更加重要,但HCP也优先考虑OS和无进展生存期(PFS)。患者在HCC旅程中经历了各种症状,包括疲劳,恶心,食欲减退,腹泻和疼痛。
    结论:总体而言,HCP和患者在整个治疗过程中就治疗决策和共同的治疗目标进行合作。OS对患者和HCP至关重要,尽管治疗目标可能会根据各种临床因素而改变。
    肝癌是全球癌症死亡的第三大原因。很少有研究直接探索患者如何经历肝癌及其治疗。进行这项研究是为了了解肝癌患者的经历,包括治疗决定和目标,患者和治疗医生之间的沟通动态,提供给患者的治疗类型和患者在患有肝癌时经历的症状。采访了患者和医生,以了解他们与肝癌一起生活和治疗肝癌的经验。总的来说,病人和医生一起决定治疗。在为他们选择最佳治疗时,患者通常信任医生的知识和专业知识。治疗决定主要基于癌症进展的程度。患者将寿命延长和保持良好的生活质量描述为他们最重要的治疗目标。以及避免肝癌复发或恶化。医生发现病人寿命更长,时间不恶化的肝癌和管理副作用作为重要的治疗目标。
    BACKGROUND: Understanding the patient journey of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may inform future clinical decision-making and enhance the patient experience. The objectives of this study were to explore the patient experience of HCC in relation to treatment options, treatment decision-making and treatment goals throughout the disease journey. This study also aimed to determine the symptoms and impacts of HCC across early, intermediate and advanced HCC.
    METHODS: Semi-structured 60-min interviews were conducted with n = 50 patients with HCC and n = 12 healthcare professionals (HCPs) with experience of treating patients with HCC. Interview data were analyzed using directed content analysis techniques with a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. An assessment of conceptual saturation was conducted for patients\' symptom experience.
    RESULTS: Patients described treatment decisions as mostly HCP-led. In this study, surgery/resection was the most frequently offered treatment option across the HCC journey, and most patients were satisfied with the treatment options presented to them. Overall, patients described extending their overall survival (OS) and preserving quality of life (QoL) as their most important treatment goals, with patients diagnosed with advanced/unresectable HCC prioritizing QoL. HCPs also prioritized OS and progression-free survival (PFS) though reported that QoL became more important as HCC progressed. Patients experienced various symptoms across the HCC journey including fatigue, nausea, appetite loss, diarrhea and pain.
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HCPs and patients collaborate throughout the treatment journey regarding treatment decisions and shared treatment goals. OS is critically important to patients and HCPs, though treatment goals may change depending on various clinical factors.
    Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Very few studies have directly explored how patients experience liver cancer and its treatment. This research was performed to understand the patient experience of liver cancer including treatment decisions and goals, communication dynamics between patients and their treating doctors, the types of treatment offered to patients and symptoms that patients experience while living with liver cancer. Patients and doctors were interviewed to understand their experience of living with and treating liver cancer. Overall, patients and doctors work together to decide on treatment. Patients generally trusted their doctor’s knowledge and expertise when selecting the best treatment(s) for them. Treatment decisions are mostly based on how far along the cancer has progressed. Patients described living longer and maintaining a good quality of life as their most important treatment goals, as well as avoiding liver cancer returning or worsening. Doctors identified that patients living longer, time without worsening of liver cancer and managing side effects as important treatment goals.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的管理中,吸入疗法起着举足轻重的作用。然而,临床医生经常面临为患者选择单一吸入器疗法和多种吸入器疗法的两难选择.这种选择是至关重要的,因为它会影响治疗效果,患者依从性,和整体疾病管理。
    本文研究了在单一和多种吸入器治疗COPD之间进行选择时要考虑的优势和因素。
    在COPD管理中必须同时考虑单吸入和多吸入治疗。虽然单一吸入器疗法提供了简单和方便,多吸入治疗提供了更大的灵活性和定制。临床医生必须仔细评估个体患者的需求和偏好,以确定最合适的吸入器治疗方案。通过个性化的治疗方法和共同的决策,临床医生可以优化COPD管理并改善患者的健康状况.然而,需要进一步的研究,以通过严格的临床试验比较单一和多个吸入器策略的有效性,没有行业偏见,以确定最佳吸入器策略。智能吸入器技术似乎有潜力提高依从性和个性化管理,但智能吸入器在单一吸入方案与多种吸入方案中的相对优点仍有待确定.
    UNASSIGNED: In the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy plays a pivotal role. However, clinicians often face the dilemma of choosing between single and multiple inhaler therapies for their patients. This choice is critical because it can affect treatment efficacy, patient adherence, and overall disease management.
    UNASSIGNED: This article examines the advantages and factors to be taken into consideration when selecting between single and multiple inhaler therapies for COPD.
    UNASSIGNED: Both single and multiple inhaler therapies must be considered in COPD management. While single inhaler therapy offers simplicity and convenience, multiple inhaler therapy provides greater flexibility and customization. Clinicians must carefully evaluate individual patient needs and preferences to determine the most appropriate inhaler therapy regimen. Through personalized treatment approaches and shared decision-making, clinicians can optimize COPD management and improve patient well-being. Nevertheless, further research is required to compare the effectiveness of single versus multiple inhaler strategies through rigorous clinical trials, free from industry bias, to determine the optimal inhaler strategy. Smart inhaler technology appears to have the potential to enhance adherence and personalized management, but the relative merits of smart inhalers in single inhaler regimens versus multiple inhaler regimens remain to be determined.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:血友病患者的治疗选择正在迅速发展,目前有一系列使用各种技术的预防性治疗选择,每个人都有自己独特的安全性和有效性。
    获得替代疗法和预防疗法已导致死亡率的急剧下降和预期寿命的增加。除此之外,消除出血和保持共同健康代表了预期,但很少达到,血友病治疗和护理的目标。这些结果也没有解决血友病及其治疗影响的健康相关生活质量的复杂性。
    结论:利用治疗创新的主要潜力,止血正常化,作为一个概念,应该包括使个人尽可能正常生活的愿望,没有血友病施加的限制。为了实现这一目标-在本手稿中审查的数据的支持下-需要在更广泛的多学科团队和血友病社区中探索和辩论止血和生活正常化的概念。
    BACKGROUND: Treatment options for people with haemophilia are evolving at a rapid pace and a range of prophylactic treatment options using various technologies are currently available, each with their own distinct safety and efficacy profile.
    UNASSIGNED: The access to replacement therapy and prophylaxis has driven a dramatic reduction in mortality and resultant increase in life expectancy. Beyond this, the abolition of bleeds and preservation of joint health represent the expected, but rarely attained, goals of haemophilia treatment and care. These outcomes also do not address the complexity of health-related quality of life impacted by haemophilia and its treatment.
    CONCLUSIONS: Capitalizing on the major potential of therapeutic innovations, \'Normalization\' of haemostasis, as a concept, should include the aspiration of enabling individuals to live as normal a life as possible, free from haemophilia-imposed limitations. To achieve this-being supported by the data reviewed in this manuscript-the concept of haemostatic and life Normalization needs to be explored and debated within the wider multidisciplinary teams and haemophilia community.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:由于吸烟相关的合并症,为患有非肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(NMIBC)或肌肉浸润性膀胱癌(MIBC)的老年患者选择合适的治疗方法具有挑战性,治疗毒性,和不良健康结果的风险增加。因此,在治疗前考虑患者的偏好是至关重要的。这里,我们旨在确定高危NMIBC(HR-NMIBC)或MIBC老年患者的健康结局优先事项.
    方法:年龄在70岁或以上或有虚弱风险的患者,诊断为HR-NMIBC或MIBC无远处转移,进行全面的老年评估(CGA)。CGA包括一次采访,体检,和一些检查身体的测试,认知,功能,和社会地位。使用EQ5D和EORTCQLQ-C30问卷评估生活质量。使用结果优先排序工具(OPT)讨论了健康结果优先事项,并研究了健康结果优先事项与CGA决定因素和生活质量之间的关联。
    结果:146例患者(14例HR-NMIBC,132MIBC),OPT数据为139。延长寿命是最优先考虑的(44%),紧随其后的是保持独立性(40%)。减少疼痛(7%)和其他症状(9%)的优先级较低。与优先减轻疼痛或其他症状的患者相比,优先延长寿命的患者的肌肉骨骼问题更少(p=0.02)。有营养不良风险或患有营养不良的患者更频繁地选择减轻疼痛或其他症状作为他们的健康结果优先事项(p=0.004)。对于所有其他CGA决定因素和生活质量,根据健康结局的优先顺序,组间无显著差异.
    结论:在HR-NMIBC和MIBC的老年患者中,延长生命和保持独立是最常见的健康结果优先事项.CGA决定因素和生活质量通常与健康结果的优先次序无关。由于CGA决定因素或生活质量无法预测健康结果的优先级,与患者讨论健康结局优先事项以促进共同决策至关重要.
    BACKGROUND: Selecting the appropriate treatment for older patients with non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is challenging due to smoking-related comorbidities, treatment toxicity, and an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Considering patient preferences prior to treatment is therefore crucial. Here, we aimed to identify the health outcome priorities of older patients with high-risk NMIBC (HR-NMIBC) or MIBC.
    METHODS: Patients aged 70 years or older or at risk for frailty, diagnosed with HR-NMIBC or MIBC without distant metastases, were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). The CGA consisted of an interview, physical examination, and several tests to examine physical, cognitive, functional, and social status. Quality of life was assessed using EQ5D and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Health outcome priorities were discussed using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and associations between health outcome priorities and CGA-determinants and quality of life were studied.
    RESULTS: Of 146 patients (14 HR-NMIBC, 132 MIBC), OPT data was available for 139. Life extension was most often prioritized (44%), closely followed by preserving independence (40%). Reducing pain (7%) and other symptoms (9%) were less often prioritized. Patients prioritizing life extension had fewer musculoskeletal problems than patients prioritizing reducing pain or other symptoms (p = 0.02). Patients at risk of or suffering from malnutrition more frequently selected reducing pain or other symptoms as their health outcome priority (p = 0.004). For all other CGA-determinants and quality of life, there were no significant differences between groups based on health outcome priorities.
    CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with HR-NMIBC and MIBC, life extension and preserving independence are the most common health outcomes priorities. CGA-determinants and quality of life are generally not associated with the prioritization of health outcomes. As health outcome priorities cannot be predicted by CGA-determinants or quality of life, it is crucial to discuss health outcome priorities with patients to promote shared decision-making.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    六十多年来,外科医生使用生物伦理策略来促进患者的自决,其中许多现在统称为“知情同意”。“然而,核心框架--理解,风险,好处,和替代方案-未能支持患者考虑治疗。我们发现,外科医生将这个框架转化为对疾病和治疗的过于复杂的技术解释,以及手术将“解决”问题的过于简化的叙述。他们忽略了有关手术目标和缺点的关键信息,并提出了站不住脚的选择作为患者选择的问题。我们提出了一个名为“更好的对话”的新框架。\"在这里,外科医生提供有关临床规范的背景,确立手术的目标,并全面描绘手术的缺点,为患者提供一个审议空间,让患者考虑手术是否适合他们。这种范式转变符合知情同意的标准,支持审议,并允许患者预测和准备治疗的经验。
    For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as \"informed consent.\" Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will \"fix\" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called \"better conversations.\" Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:澳大利亚已经建立了治疗目标,以促进中重度银屑病成人的治疗。澳大利亚皮肤科医师学院试图确定是否以及如何修改这些成人治疗目标,以适应儿科和青少年患者的需求。
    方法:采用改进的德尔菲法。全面的文献回顾和指南评估导致了陈述和其他问题的发展,以建立当前的临床实践。进行了两轮匿名投票,其间举行了一次合作会议,讨论不和谐的领域。总的来说,共识定义为在9分制的7-9范围内达到≥75%的一致性(1个强烈不同意;9个强烈同意).
    结果:在第1轮中对23/29的声明和在第2轮中对17/18的声明达成了共识。在成人环境中,与治疗标准的一致性很高。强调了将开发用于成年患者的评估工具应用于儿科环境的局限性。儿科环境中的治疗目标应包括疾病严重程度和对患者及其家人的心理影响的客观指标,并基于验证,适合年龄的工具。
    结论:虽然评估,儿科患者中至重度银屑病的分类和管理与成人建立的指标一致,重要的是要考虑到从童年到青春期过渡的细微差别。未来的研究应集中在特定于儿科的牛皮癣严重程度评估量表上。
    BACKGROUND: Treatment goals have been established in Australia to facilitate the management of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. The Australasian College of Dermatologists sought to determine if and how these adult treatment goals could be modified to accommodate the needs of paediatric and adolescent patients.
    METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. Comprehensive literature review and guideline evaluation resulted in the development of statements and other questions to establish current clinical practices. Two rounds of anonymous voting were undertaken, with a collaborative meeting held in between to discuss areas of discordance. Overall, consensus was defined as achievement of ≥75% agreement in the range 7-9 on a 9-point scale (1 strongly disagree; 9 strongly agree).
    RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 23/29 statements in round 1 and 17/18 statements in round 2. There was a high level of concordance with treatment criteria in the adult setting. The limitations of applying assessment tools developed for use in adult patients to the paediatric setting were highlighted. Treatment targets in the paediatric setting should include objective metrics for disease severity and psychological impact on the patients and their family, and be based on validated, age-appropriate tools.
    CONCLUSIONS: While the assessment, classification and management of moderate to severe psoriasis in paediatric patients aligns with metrics established for adults, it is vital that nuances in the transition from childhood to adolescence be taken into account. Future research should focus on psoriasis severity assessment scales specific to the paediatric setting.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:自上次指南由加拿大胸科学会出版以来,在重症哮喘的临床管理方面取得了一些进展.为了更好地了解当前患者的护理标准和治疗模式,CASCADE实践反思计划的建立是为了对加拿大专家中的严重哮喘管理进行真实世界分析,目的是确定改善患者管理和结局的机会领域.
    方法:CASCADE计划是一个由两部分组成的实践反思和评估计划,通过在线门户为加拿大的选定专家(呼吸道学家和变态反应学家)提供。该计划包括对医师实践的一次性概述调查,以建立总体实践参数,随后对至少5名重度哮喘患者进行了回顾,以确定目前的重度哮喘管理状况.
    结果:该计划收集了78位专家的实践概述调查(52位生殖学家,24名过敏症患者,和2名对呼吸系统疾病感兴趣的全科医生)在8个省。实践包括大城市中心和较小区域环境中的各种类型。有503名患者被审查并纳入该计划。大多数(65%)患者目前正在使用生物治疗,30%是生物学幼稚,5%的人过去曾使用过生物治疗。据报道,大多数患者(53%)具有混合的过敏和嗜酸性粒细胞表型,尽管人们认为过敏,在医师实践中,嗜酸性粒细胞和混合表型均匀平衡。总的来说,目前接受生物制剂治疗的患者的参数表明控制较高,并且对治疗更满意.然而,超过一半的患者的治疗满意度低于最佳治疗满意度,特别是对于那些没有用生物制剂治疗的患者。
    结论:表型分析因几项评估的可用性差而受阻,目前还没有充分利用全方位的治疗方法,部分原因是医生熟悉药物,部分原因是处方限制。即使用生物制剂治疗,患者满意度仍可提高。
    BACKGROUND: Since the last guidance was published by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there have been several advances in the clinical management of severe asthma. To gain a better understanding of the current standards of care and treatment patterns of patients, the CASCADE practice reflective program was established to conduct a real-world analysis of severe asthma management among specialists in Canada with a goal of identifying areas of opportunity to enhance patient management and outcomes.
    METHODS: The CASCADE program was a two-part practice reflective and assessment program delivered through an on-line portal for selected specialists (Respirologists and Allergists) in Canada. The program consisted of a one-time overview survey of physician practice to establish overall practice parameters, followed by a review of at least 5 severe asthma patients to establish the current landscape of severe asthma management.
    RESULTS: The program collected practice overview surveys from 78 specialists (52 Respirologists, 24 Allergists, and 2 General practice physicians with an interest in respiratory disease) in 8 provinces. Practices included a variety of types in both large metropolitan centres and smaller regional settings. There were 503 patients reviewed and included in the program. Most (65%) patients were currently using a biologic treatment, 30% were biologic naive, and 5% had used a biologic treatment in the past. Most patients (53%) were reported to have mixed allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes, despite a perception that allergic, eosinophilic and mixed phenotypes were evenly balanced in the physician practice. Overall, patients currently treated with biologic agents had parameters suggesting higher control and were more satisfied with treatment. However, there was less than optimal treatment satisfaction for more than half of all patients, particularly for those patients not treated with a biologic agent.
    CONCLUSIONS: Phenotyping is hampered by poor availability for several assessments, and the full range of treatments are not currently fully utilized, partly due to physician familiarity with the agents and partly due to prescribing restrictions. Even when treated with biologic agents, patient satisfaction can still be improved.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:国家银屑病基金会(NPF)建议在第12周评估患者对治疗的反应,目标反应≤1%的体表面积(BSA)受斑块状银屑病影响,可接受的反应≤3%或≥75%的BSA改善。该事后分析比较了ixekizumab(IXE)与其他生物制剂的NPF目标和可接受反应的实现。
    方法:在第12周评估了来自四个头对头随机临床试验(RCT;UNCOVER-2,UNCOVER-3,IXORA-R,和IXORA-S)和一项现实世界的前瞻性观察研究(银屑病健康结局研究;PSoHO)。RCT患者接受IXE或依那西普(ETN;UNCOVER-2/3)治疗,guselkumab(GUS;IXORA-R),或ustekinumab(UST;IXORA-S)。PSoHO患者接受了抗白细胞介素(IL)-17A生物制剂(IXE,苏金单抗,SEC)和其他批准的用于治疗斑块状银屑病的生物制剂。结果缺失的患者被归入无反应者归因。对于RCT数据,治疗组之间的统计学比较采用Fisher精确检验,无多重性校正.对于真实世界的数据,使用频率模型平均(FMA)进行校正比较分析,并报告为比值比(OR).
    结果:在四个头对头临床试验中进行了分析,在第12周,IXE与ETN相比,达到目标和可接受反应的患者比例明显更高,GUS,或UST。同样,与其他个体生物制剂相比,接受IXE治疗的PSoHO患者在第12周达到目标和可接受缓解的比例更高.调整后的比较分析显示,与SEC相比,IXE在第12周的目标和可接受反应的几率明显更高,GUS,利安珠单抗(RIS),阿达木单抗(ADA),UST,和tildrakizumab(TILD),与Brodalumab(BROD)相比,在第12周时达到目标和可接受反应的几率更高。
    结论:在临床研究和现实环境中,与接受其他生物制剂治疗的患者相比,接受IXE治疗的患者在第12周有更多的患者达到NPF目标和可接受的缓解.
    背景:UNCOVER-2(NCT01597245);UNCOVER-3(NCT01646177);IXORA-R(NCT03573323);IXORA-S(NCT02561806);PSoHO(EUPAS24207)。
    BACKGROUND: The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) recommends evaluating patient response to treatment at week 12, with a target response of ≤ 1% body surface area (BSA) affected by plaque psoriasis and an acceptable response of BSA ≤ 3% or ≥ 75% improvement. This post hoc analysis compared the achievement of NPF target and acceptable responses for ixekizumab (IXE) versus other biologics.
    METHODS: Outcomes were evaluated at week 12 for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from four head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs; UNCOVER-2, UNCOVER-3, IXORA-R, and IXORA-S) and one real-world prospective observational study (Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes; PSoHO). RCT patients were treated with IXE or etanercept (ETN; UNCOVER-2/3), guselkumab (GUS; IXORA-R), or ustekinumab (UST; IXORA-S). PSoHO patients were treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-17A biologics (IXE, secukinumab, SEC) and other approved biologics for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Patients with missing outcomes were imputed as non-responder imputation. For RCT data, statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher\'s exact test with no multiplicity adjustments. For real-world data, adjusted comparative analyses were performed using frequentist model averaging (FMA) and reported as odds ratio (OR).
    RESULTS: Across the four head-to-head clinical trials analyzed, significantly higher proportions of patients achieved target and acceptable responses at week 12 with IXE versus ETN, GUS, or UST. Likewise, the proportion of PSoHO patients achieving target and acceptable response at week 12 was higher with IXE compared with other individual biologics. Adjusted comparative analyses showed that IXE had significantly greater odds of target and acceptable response at week 12 versus SEC, GUS, risankizumab (RIS), adalimumab (ADA), UST, and tildrakizumab (TILD) and numerically greater odds of target and acceptable response at week 12 versus brodalumab (BROD).
    CONCLUSIONS: Across both clinical studies and real-world settings, more patients treated with IXE achieved NPF target and acceptable responses at week 12 compared with those treated with other biologics.
    BACKGROUND: UNCOVER-2 (NCT01597245); UNCOVER-3 (NCT01646177); IXORA-R (NCT03573323); IXORA-S (NCT02561806); PSoHO (EUPAS24207).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    斑秃(AA),一种自身免疫性疾病-影响头皮的头发,脸,和/或身体,可能给患者带来巨大的心理和生理负担。目前没有关于如何治疗AA的国际协议,不同国家的方法可能有所不同。这项研究调查了临床实践中AA的管理。来自法国进行的时间点调查的数据,德国,意大利,西班牙,和英国,2021年10月至2022年6月,对患有轻度、中度,严重的AA,基于医生的评估。皮肤科医生调查了用于评估疾病严重程度的因素,医生报告的治疗目标,以及AA的治疗模式,包括假发的使用。总的来说,239名皮肤科医生报告了2,083名患者。医生的严重程度评估和治疗目标主要由头皮脱发驱动。局部和病灶内皮质类固醇是轻度和中度AA的最常用治疗方法。常规免疫抑制剂,口服Janus激酶抑制剂,局部免疫疗法的使用通常随着AA严重程度和治疗路线的增加而增加。假发的使用对于严重的AA是最大的。中、重度组末次治疗改变的主要原因是病情恶化,缺乏初步疗效,失去反应,对于轻度组,病情有所改善,缺乏初步疗效,和恶化的情况。各国的调查结果普遍相似。此分析提供了对五个欧洲国家AA管理的见解,并证实了对更有效疗法的需求,尤其是严重AA患者。
    Alopecia areata (AA), an autoimmune disease -affecting the hair of the scalp, face, and/or body, can entail substantial psychological and physical burden for patients. There is currently no international agreement on how to treat AA and the approach may vary across countries. This study investigated the management of AA in clinical practice. Data from a point-in-time survey conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, between October 2021-June 2022, were analysed for adults with mild, moderate, and severe AA, based on physician assessment. Dermatologists were surveyed about factors used to assess disease severity, physician-reported treatment goals, and treatment patterns for AA, including the use of wigs. In total, 239 dermatologists reported on 2,083 patients. Physicians\' severity assessment and treatment goals were predominantly driven by scalp hair loss. Topical and intralesional corticosteroids were the most prescribed treatments for mild and moderate AA. Conventional immunosuppressants, oral Janus kinase inhibitors, and topical immunotherapy use generally increased with AA severity and therapy line. Wig use was greatest for severe AA. The primary reasons for the last treatment change in the moderate and severe groups were worsening of condition, lack of initial efficacy, and loss of response, and for mild group were improvement in condition, lack of initial efficacy, and worsening of condition. Findings were generally similar across countries. This analysis provides insights into the management of AA in five European countries and confirms the need for more effective therapies, especially for patients with severe AA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    据称,治疗师与客户对关键结构(例如治疗目标)的认知匹配是文化胜任护理的重要组成部分。对于青少年客户,治疗可能涉及年轻人和他们的父母,建议需要考虑青年治疗师和父母治疗师的观点。这项纵向研究在245名使用门诊精神卫生服务的年轻人中,研究了宽带青年治疗师和父母治疗师治疗目标匹配和与治疗参与关系的不匹配。尽管目标匹配/不匹配并不能统一预测以总分衡量的治疗参与度,青年治疗师内化目标匹配预测了更好的青年参与度,和父母-治疗师外部化目标不匹配略微预测了更糟糕的父母参与。当选定的事后分析检查了与四个个体参与维度的关系时,青年-治疗师内化目标与预测的青年-治疗师互动正匹配,沟通/开放,客户对治疗的感知有用性,以及与治疗的合作,而父母-治疗师将目标不匹配外化则负面地预测了父母与治疗的合作。研究结果支持认知匹配对治疗目标的重要性,以及对父母和青年观点的考虑,匹配和不匹配的目标,内化和外化目标,并检查各个维度以及参与度的总分。
    Therapist-client cognitive match upon key constructs such as treatment goals is purported to be an important component of culturally competent care. For adolescent clients, treatment may involve both youths and their parents, suggesting the need to consider both youth-therapist and parent-therapist perspectives. This longitudinal study examined broadband youth-therapist and parent-therapist treatment goal matching and mismatching in relationship to treatment engagement in a culturally diverse sample of 245 outpatient mental health service-using youth. Although goal matching/mismatching did not uniformly predict treatment engagement as measured by a total score, youth-therapist internalizing goal matching predicted better youth engagement, and parent-therapist externalizing goal mismatch marginally predicted worse parent engagement. When selected post hoc analyses examined relationships to four individual engagement dimensions, youth-therapist internalizing goal matches positively predicted youth Client-therapist interaction, Communication/Openness, Client\'s perceived usefulness of therapy, and Collaboration with treatment, while parent-therapist externalizing goal mismatch negatively predicted parent Collaboration with treatment. Findings support the importance of cognitive match on treatment goals as well as the consideration of both parent and youth perspectives, matched and mismatched goals, internalizing and externalizing goals, and examining individual dimensions in addition to total scores of engagement.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号