RESUMO
Background: The NHLBI has not developed clinical practice guidelines since 2007. As a result, multiple organizations have released competing guidelines. This has created confusion and debate among clinicians as to which recommendations are most applicable for practice. Objectives: To explore preliminary attitudes, awareness, and usage of clinical practice guidelines in practice and teaching for hypertension, dyslipidemia and asthma among clinical pharmacists. Methods: Clinical pharmacists across the US were surveyed electronically over a two week period in Spring 2019 regarding utilization and knowledge of practice guidelines for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and asthma. Clinical cases were included to evaluate application of guidelines. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square analysis, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were conducted. Statistical significance level was set to 0.01 to account for multiple tests conducted on the same survey participants. Results: Forty-eight, 34, and 28 pharmacists voluntarily completed hypertension, dyslipidemia, and asthma survey questions, respectively. Interactions by disease state (p < 0.001) revealed more pharmacists (93%) reporting to have ≤50% patient load in managing asthma and more pharmacists (95%) had read the full summary/report of the most recent hypertension guideline. Primary reasons why the most recent guideline was not selected were also significantly different by disease state (interaction; p < 0.001). For dyslipidemia and asthma, pharmacists had a higher mean rating of agreement (p < 0.007) in having the most confidence in the most recent as compared to older guidelines. Proportionally more clinical cases were answered correctly (interaction; p < 0.001) when pharmacists applied the most recent guideline for hypertension (84%), while the opposite outcome was found for asthma (27%). Conclusion: While more pharmacists selected the most recent guideline for practice and teaching, there was inconsistent application of guidelines to clinical cases. Further studies with a larger representation of pharmacists are warranted to more definitively determine factors influencing guideline preference and usage.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical trials using bumetanide in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) treatment. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2018) were searched using terms bumetanide and autism. Bibliographies were reviewed for other relevant trials. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English language, randomized, controlled, clinical trials in humans were evaluated. Three trials met all inclusion criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Oral bumetanide was studied in 208 patients, 2 to 18 years old, with ASD. Trials evaluated bumetanide's impact on core behavioral features using several different autism assessment scales. All trials used the Childhood Autism Rating Scale to assess improvement at 90 days, with one trial finding statistical significance. The Clinical Global Impressions Scale identified statistically significant improvements in 2 of the 3 trials. The Autism Behavioral Checklist and Social Responsiveness Scales identified statistical benefit in the 2 trials utilizing those outcomes. Behaviors most improved by bumetanide included social communication, interactions, and restricted interest. No dose-effect correlation was identified in the dose-ranging trial. Adverse effects, including hypokalemia and polyuria, occurred more often with higher doses and resulted in withdrawal rates of 17% to 43%. Bumetanide 0.5 mg twice daily was the most studied and best tolerated dose. Limitations included unclear clinical success definitions and evaluation methodology variability. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: No effective treatment options for core ASD symptoms have been approved. This review presents preliminary safety and efficacy data for bumetanide in ASD. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose oral bumetanide may be useful in patients with moderate to severe ASD when behavioral therapies are not available.
