Evidence-based nursing practice: are we there yet?

The volume of evidence for nursing practice has increased as a result of research and scientific discoveries. Yet we are still struggling with the dilemma of how to get evidence into nursing practice. Estimates are that it takes 20 years before innovations are fully put into use. Research is one type of knowledge to be used in practice. Nursing and patient care would benefit from moving more toward knowledge based on research and evidence. This article reviews barriers to and facilitators of using evidence in nursing practice and discusses a model for promoting the systematic use of evidence in practice. The author also offers suggestions for increasing the evidence base of nursing practice. Using evidence in nursing practice is important for all nurses, but requires more that the attention of the individual nurse.     

DNA methylation biomarkers in asthma and rhinitis: Are we there yet?

The study of epigenetics has improved our understanding of mechanisms underpinning gene‐environment interactions and is providing new insights in the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases. We reviewed the literature on DNA methylation patterns across different tissues in asthma and/or rhinitis and attempted to elucidate differentially methylated loci that could be used to characterize asthma or rhinitis. Although nasal and bronchial epithelia are similar in their histological structure and cellular composition, genetic and epigenetic regulation may differ across tissues. Advanced methods have enabled comprehensive, high‐throughput methylation profiling of different tissues (bronchial or nasal epithelial cells, whole blood or isolated mononuclear cells), in subjects with respiratory conditions, aiming to elucidate gene regulation mechanisms and identify new biomarkers. Several genes and CpGs have been suggested as asthma biomarkers, though research on allergic rhinitis is still lacking. The most common differentially methylated loci presented in both blood and nasal samples are ACOT7, EPX, KCNH2, SIGLEC8, TNIK, FOXP1, ATPAF2, ZNF862, ADORA3, ARID3A, IL5RA, METRNL and ZFPM1. Overall, there is substantial variation among studies, (i.e. sample sizes, age groups and disease phenotype). Greater variability of analysis method detailed phenotypic characterization and age stratification should be taken into account in future studies.     

Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet?

Expanded abstract

Citation

Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.

Background

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

Methods

Objective

The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients'' interaction with nursing care.

Design

Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.

Setting

The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.

Subjects

The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.

Intervention

After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.

Outcomes

For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.

Results

Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).

Conclusions

Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.     

Humanized mice: are we there yet?

Animal models have been instrumental in increasing the understanding of human physiology, particularly immunity. However, these animal models have been limited by practical considerations and genetic diversity. The creation of humanized mice that carry partial or complete human physiological systems may help overcome these obstacles. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases convened a workshop on humanized mouse models for immunity in Bethesda, MD, on June 13-14, 2005, during which researchers discussed the benefits and limitations of existing animal models and offered insights into the development of future humanized mouse models.     

Gene therapy for severe combined immunodeficiency: are we there yet?

Inherited and acquired diseases of the hematopoietic system can be cured by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This treatment strategy is highly successful when an HLA-matched sibling donor is available, but if not, few therapeutic options exist. Gene-modified, autologous bone marrow transplantation can circumvent the severe immunological complications that occur when a related HLA-mismatched donor is used and thus represents an attractive alternative. In this review, we summarize the advantages and limitations associated with the use of gene therapy to cure SCID. Insertional mutagenesis and technological improvements aimed at increasing the safety of this strategy are also discussed.     

Using statins to treat inflammation in acute coronary syndromes: Are we there yet?

Inflammation and oxidative damage play direct roles in coronary artery disease. C-reactive protein (CRP) is currently the best available marker of inflammation, and statins can potentially reduce coronary inflammation. Until now, CRP testing has been somewhat controversial in the context of cardiovascular disease, as has statin treatment specifically to treat inflammation. However, three recent studies showed that early and aggressive treatment with statins reduces future cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes; another study showed that aggressive statin treatment leads to regression of stable coronary artery disease. In all the studies, the benefit correlated with reductions in CRP.