Treatment Of Single Diseases Research Articles

Nutraceuticals and biotics in pediatric gastrointestinal disorders.

In recent years there has been growing interest in the use of nutraceuticals and biotics in both pediatric and adult clinical practice. The overlapping and often ambiguous symptoms of both functional and organic gastrointestinal disorders have led to a search for alternative therapeutic approaches that avoid the use of synthetic or chemical treatments. However, while nutraceuticals and natural supplements are widely used, their health benefits are often not supported by adequate scientific evidence, and an unregulated use of nutraceuticals can be potentially harmful. The correct use of nutraceuticals, prebiotics, and probiotics can optimize the results of drug therapy in some cases and reduce the risk of side effects. This review aims to provide clinicians with guidance on the use of complementary therapies for pediatric gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders, highlighting the scarcity of studies on the kinetics and dynamics of nutraceuticals and biotics. While it is generally difficult to associate their intakes with adverse events due to the often-coexisting pharmacological treatments, it is essential to avoid the abandonment of traditional drugs with proven efficacy in the treatment of single diseases. Overall, the use of nutraceuticals, prebiotics, and probiotics in pediatric gastroenterological practice requires caution and medical supervision. Further research is needed to determine the effects of alternative therapies on pediatric gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders, and to ensure their safe and effective use in the clinical practice.

The Impact of Payment Reforms on the Quality and Utilisation of Healthcare for Patients With Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review.

Inadequate treatment of multimorbidity is recognised as a major determinant of the effectiveness of healthcare and also of its inappropriate expenditures. However, current payment systems target, primarily, the treatment of single diseases, thus hindering integrated delivery of care for patients with multimorbidity (PwM). This review aims to assess the effects of targeted reforms of payment systems which could help attain a higher quality of care and reduce unnecessary healthcare utilisation. In June 2020, a search of Medline and EMBASE revealed 13 relevant articles. The most common payment models were the use of bundled payments (n = 4) and diagnosis-related group payments (n = 4). Except for an increase in hospital admissions (n = 3), no outcome showed unambiguous significant effects across more than one study. The two studies which focused explicitly on PwM showed a significant decrease in 30-day hospital readmissions. This, however, was not maintained after 60 days in one study. No general conclusion could be drawn on the effects of targeted payment reforms for PwM. Our findings suggest that reforms should be combined with more multifaceted healthcare delivery to address the complex patterns of healthcare use effectively. Thorough evaluations of targeted payment reforms are needed urgently to contribute to the body of evidence required.

Current Guidelines Have Limited Applicability to Patients with Comorbid Conditions: A Systematic Analysis of Evidence-Based Guidelines

BackgroundGuidelines traditionally focus on the diagnosis and treatment of single diseases. As almost half of the patients with a chronic disease have more than one disease, the applicability of guidelines may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent that guidelines address comorbidity and to assess the supporting evidence of recommendations related to comorbidity.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe conducted a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines focusing on four highly prevalent chronic conditions with a high impact on quality of life: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and osteoarthritis. Data were abstracted from each guideline on the extent that comorbidity was addressed (general comments, specific recommendations), the type of comorbidity discussed (concordant, discordant), and the supporting evidence of the comorbidity-related recommendations (level of evidence, translation of evidence). Of the 20 guidelines, 17 (85%) addressed the issue of comorbidity and 14 (70%) provided specific recommendations on comorbidity. In general, the guidelines included few recommendations on patients with comorbidity (mean 3 recommendations per guideline, range 0 to 26). Of the 59 comorbidity-related recommendations provided, 46 (78%) addressed concordant comorbidities, 8 (14%) discordant comorbidities, and for 5 (8%) the type of comorbidity was not specified. The strength of the supporting evidence was moderate for 25% (15/59) and low for 37% (22/59) of the recommendations. In addition, for 73% (43/59) of the recommendations the evidence was not adequately translated into the guidelines.Conclusions/SignificanceOur study showed that the applicability of current evidence-based guidelines to patients with comorbid conditions is limited. Most guidelines do not provide explicit guidance on treatment of patients with comorbidity, particularly for discordant combinations. Guidelines should be more explicit about the applicability of their recommendations to patients with comorbidity. Future clinical trials should also include patients with the most prevalent combinations of chronic conditions.