Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal of the Quality of the Scientific Evidence and Conflicts of Interest in Practice Guidelines (2005-2013) for Barrett's Esophagus

Factors Associated with the Quality and Transparency of National Guidelines: A Mixed-Methods Study

We assessed the methodological quality and transparency of all the national clinical practice guidelines that were published in Croatia up until 2017 and explored the factors associated with their quality rating. An in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed using rigorous methodology. We evaluated the guidelines using a validated AGREE II instrument with four raters; we used multiple linear regressions to identify the predictors of quality; and two focus groups, including guideline developers, to further explore the guideline development process. The majority of the guidelines (N = 74) were developed by medical societies. The guidelines’ quality was rated low: the median standardized AGREE II score was low, 36% (IQR 28–42), and so were the overall-assessments. The aspects of the guidelines that were rated best were the “clarity of presentation” and the “scope and purpose” (median ≥ 59%); however, the other four domains received very low scores (15–33%). Overall, the guideline quality did not improve over time. The guidelines that were developed by medical societies scored significantly worse than those developed by governmental, or unofficial working groups (12–43% per domain). In focus group discussions, inadequate methodology, a lack of implementation systems in place, a lack of awareness about editorial independence, and broader expertise/perspectives in working groups were identified as factors behind the low scores. The factors identified as affecting the quality of the national guidelines may help stakeholders who are developing interventions and education programs aimed at improving guideline quality worldwide.

Recommendation Reversals in Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background

Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may be reversed when evidence emerges to show they are futile or unsafe. In this study, we identified and characterized recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs.

Methods

We searched CPGs published by 20 gastroenterology societies from January 1990 to December 2019. We included guidelines which had at least two iterations of the same topic. We defined reversals as when (a) the more recent iteration of a CPG recommends against a specific practice that was previously recommend in an earlier iteration of a CPG from the same body, and (b) the recommendation in the previous iteration of the CPG is not replaced by a new diagnostic or therapeutic recommendation in the more recent iteration of the CPG. The primary outcome was the number of recommendation reversals. Secondary outcomes included the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence cited for reversals.

Results

Twenty societies published 1022 CPGs from 1990 to 2019. Our sample for analysis included 129 unique CPGs. There were 11 recommendation reversals from 10 guidelines. New evidence was presented for 10 recommendation reversals. Meta-analyses were cited for two reversals, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for seven reversals. Recommendations were stronger after the reversal for three cases, weaker in two cases, and of similar strength in three cases. We were unable to compare recommendation strengths for three reversals.

Conclusion

Recommendation reversals in gastroenterology CPGs are uncommon but highlight low value or harmful practices.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence

BACKGROUND

Owning to colorectal cancer's (CRC) high mortality, multiple societies developed screening guidelines.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the overall quality of CRC screening guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to review CRC screening guidelines for conflicts of interest (COI), recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representative, and recommendation age-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R.

RESULTS

Twelve manuscripts were included in final analysis. Not all guidelines reported on COI, provided a grading method, underwent external review, or included patient representation. 14.5%, 34.2%, and 51.3% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 27.8%, 54.6%, and 17.5% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence and strong recommendations did not significantly differ across societies, nor were significant associations between publication year and evidence quality seen (P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of the CRC guidelines contain aspects of the standards set forth by the IOM, there is an overall lack of adherence. As over 85% of recommendations are based on low-moderate quality evidence, further studies on CRC screening are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

Is there a standardized practice for the development of international ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease treatment guidelines?

BACKGROUND

Guidelines are published by international gastroenterology societies regarding the management of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) to help clinicians to provide high-quality patient care. We examined the guidelines for the quality and strength of evidence used to develop the recommendations, methods for grading evidence, differences in disease-specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and plans for guideline updates.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on PubMed using "ulcerative colitis," "Crohn's disease," and "guidelines" in April 2019. International gastroenterology society websites were searched for UC- and CD-specific guidelines. Guidelines from 12 societies were examined by two authors. Chi-squared tests were used for comparing evidence-level grades, strength of recommendations, and reported conflicts of interest. Linear-regression modeling was used to evaluate the relationship between the number of authors and the number of recommendations in a given guideline.

RESULTS

Of 28 guidelines reviewed, 25 (89%) used a total of three different systems to grade the level of evidence and 2 (7%) used an unknown system. Three (11%) reviewed guidelines did not provide a conflict-of-interest statement, while three (11%) provided a timeline for guideline updates. Of 1,265 total statements examined, 246 (19%) reported no grade of evidence quality or explicitly stated that the recommendation was based on "expert opinion." One hundred and thirty-five (22%) UC recommendations were noted to be "weak/conditional" and 95 (16%) did not have a recommendation strength. Two hundred and forty-two (37%) CD recommendations were noted to be "weak/conditional" and 151 (23%) did not have a recommendation strength.

CONCLUSION

The majority of UC and CD guidelines are based on a low/very low quality of evidence and are further weakened due to the lack of homogeneity in specific aspects of management recommendations as well as conflicts of interest.

Guidelines in Gastroenterology: Careful Interpretation Is Essential

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain recommendations that aim to guide physicians in the diagnosis of and therapeutic approach toward patients affected by gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies. These CPG systematically combine scientific evidence and clinical judgment, culminating in recommendations that have been shown to improve patient care.

Material and Methods

European and North American guidelines published in the area of gastroenterology in 2018 and 2019 were considered for inclusion. To standardize the results, only guidelines that used GRADE as an evidence system were included. Thus, in the end, 1,233 recommendations from 29 guidelines published between 2018 and 2019 were analyzed.

Results

Of the 1,233 recommendations collected, 324 (26.3%) had a low level of evidence and 127 (10.3%) had a very low level of evidence, indicating little evidence or expert opinion. Of the 29 publications analyzed, 14 (48.3%) did not present any recommendation with a high level of evidence. Regarding the 1,233 individual recommendations expressed in these 29 publications, only 336 (27.25%) assumed a high level of evidence, with 277 (82.44%) referring to liver pathology. Of the recommendations evaluated, 77 were from North American societies and the remaining 1,156 were European recommendations. In relation to the first group, only 3 (3.9%) had a high level of evidence belonging to the Guidelines for Sedation and Anesthesia in GI Endoscopy.

Conclusions

More than 25% of all recommendations currently accepted to guide patients with gastroenterological disorders are based on low-quality evidence or expert opinion. Thus, these documents should guide our performance, but clinical sense and multidisciplinarity must not be overlooked in dubious cases and with weak scientific evidence. Research should focus on the development of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews to improve the evidence supporting the guidelines that guide clinical practice.

Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings

Introduction

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee (GIDAC) is involved in gastrointestinal drug application reviews. Characteristics and conflicts of interest (COI) in GIDAC meetings are not well described. This study analyzed FDA GIDAC meetings and characteristics that predict recommendations.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, all publicly available GIDAC meetings where proposed medications were voted on were included. Data were collected regarding indications, medication sponsor, primary efficacy studies, and voting member characteristics (e.g. committee membership, COI). Univariate analyses were conducted at per-meeting and per-vote levels to assess for predictors of committee recommendation and individual votes respectively.

Results

Thirty-four meetings with 476 individual votes from 1998–2018 were included. Twenty-three (68%) proposals were recommended for approval and 25 (74%) received FDA approval. Most proposals involved >1 primary study (n = 27, 79%). At least one voting member had a COI in 24 (71%) of 34 meetings. Twelve (35%) meetings had at least one sponsor COI. Among 476 individual votes, 74 (15.5%) involved a COI, with 33 (6.9%) sponsor COI. COI decreased significantly over time, with fewer COI in 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2020 compared to 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 (p<0.01). There were no significant associations between pre-defined predictors, including COI, and committee level recommendations or individual votes (p>0.05 for all univariate analyses).

Conclusions

The GIDAC reviewed 34 proposals from 1998–2018. The majority were recommended for approval and later approved by the FDA, highlighting the GIDAC’s prominence in the regulatory process. COI are present among GIDAC panelists but decreasing over time and not associated with recommendations.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Objective

To systematically evaluate the prevalence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) among clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

Methods

In this systematic review, we ascertained the prevalence and types of FCOI for CPGs from January 1, 1980, to March 3, 2019. The primary outcome was the prevalence of FCOI among authors of CPGs. FCOI disclosures were compared between medical subspecialties and societies producing CPGs.

Results

Among the 37 studies including 14,764 total guideline authors, 45% had at least one FCOI. The prevalence of FCOI per study ranged from 6% to 100%. More authors had FCOI involving general payments (39%) compared with research payments (29%). Oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology had the highest prevalence of FCOI compared with other medical specialties. Among the 8 studies that included the monetary values in US dollars of FCOI, average payments per author ranged from $578 to $242,300. Among the 10 studies that included data on undisclosed FCOI, 32% of authors had undisclosed industry payments.

Conclusion

There are numerous FCOI among authors of CPGs, many of which are undisclosed. Our study found a significant difference in FCOI prevalence based on types of FCOI and CPG sponsor society. Additional research is required to quantify the implications of FCOI on clinical judgment and patient care.

•

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) may have an impact on the objectivity of clinical practice guidelines.

•

Among the 37 studies included in this systematic review, 45% of the 14,764 guideline authors had an FCOI.

•

Authors of oncology, neurology, and gastroenterology guidelines had higher prevalence of FCOI compared with other guidelines.

•

Eight studies included monetary value of FCOI, which ranged from $578 to $242,300 per author.

•

Little is known about the direct impact of FCOI on how authors of clinical practice guidelines vote on recommendations during guideline development.

Systematic review of the published guidelines on Barrett's esophagus: should we stress the consensus or the differences?

Multiple guidelines on Barrett's esophagus (BE) have being published in order to standardize and improve clinical practice. However, studies have shown poor adherence to them. Our aim was to synthetize, compare, and assess the quality of recommendations from recently published guidelines, stressing similarities and differences. We conducted a search in Pubmed and Scopus. When different guidelines from the same society were identified, the most recent one was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence. We included 24 guidelines and position/consensus statements from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, British Society of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, Australian guidelines, and Asia-Pacific consensus. All guidelines defend that BE should be diagnosed when there is an extension of columnar epithelium into the distal esophagus. However, there is still some controversy regarding length and histology criteria for BE diagnosis. All guidelines recommend expert pathologist review for dysplasia diagnosis. All guidelines recommend surveillance for non-dysplastic BE, and some recommend surveillance for indefinite dysplasia. While the majority of guidelines recommend ablation therapy for low-grade dysplasia without visible lesion, others recommend ablation therapy or endoscopic surveillance. However, controversy exists regarding surveillance intervals and biopsy protocols. All guidelines recommend endoscopic resection followed by ablation therapy for neoplastic visible lesion. Several guidelines use the GRADE system, but the majority of recommendations are based on low and moderate quality of evidence. Although there is considerable consensus among guidelines, there are some discrepancies resulting from low-quality evidence. The lack of high-quality evidence for the majority of recommendations highlights the importance of continued well-conducted research in this field.

Evidencia sobre conflictos de intereses en medicina

Introducción. La principal responsabilidad de los médicos es la de actuar en beneficio de los pacientes; sin embargo, existen situaciones en las cuales surgen intereses secundarios que pueden afectar este compromiso y generar conflictos de intereses.Objetivo. Analizar las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis actualmente disponibles en la literatura sobre el conflicto de intereses en medicina para sintetizar la información al respecto.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos MEDLINE y LILACS mediante la siguiente estrategia de búsqueda: revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis sobre conflictos de intereses en medicina publicados en revistas científicas seriadas; no se aplicaron restricciones de idioma o año de publicación. Los estudios que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión fueron agrupados según la actividad médica evaluada; además, de cada uno de ellos se extrajo la cantidad y el tipo de estudios y las conclusiones.Resultados. Se seleccionaron 29 publicaciones que se agruparon en estudios basados en artículos de investigación, en guías de práctica clínica, en la práctica clínica, y en publicaciones orientadas a los pacientes.Conclusiones. Los estudios originales incluidos en las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis analizados en el presente estudio no siempre reportan los conflictos de intereses; sin embargo, cuando estos se mencionan, hay una tendencia a presentar resultados que favorecen el medicamento o la tecnología del patrocinador.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Balancing Clinical Value and Cost-effectiveness

In predisposed individuals with long standing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophageal squamous mucosa can transform into columnar mucosa with intestinal metaplasia, commonly called Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Barrett’s mucosa can develop dysplasia, which can be a precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, most EAC cases are identified when esophageal symptoms develop, without prior BE or GERD diagnoses. While several gastrointestinal societies have published BE screening guidelines, these vary, and many recommendations are not based on high quality evidence. These guidelines are concordant in recommending targeted screening of predisposed individuals (eg, long standing GERD symptoms with age > 50 years, male sex, Caucasian race, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC), and against population based screening, or screening of GERD patients without risk factors. Targeted endoscopic screening programs provide earlier diagnosis of high grade dysplasia and EAC, and offer potential for endoscopic therapy, which can improve prognosis and outcome. On the other hand, endoscopic screening of the general population, unselected GERD patients, patients with significant comorbidities or patients with limited life expectancy is not cost-effective. New screening modalities, some of which do not require endoscopy, have the potential to reduce costs and expand access to screening for BE.

Critical appraisal of guidelines for screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) arising on Barrett esophagus (BE) has become the most frequent type of esophageal malignancy in the Western world. BE is a frequent condition but progression to EAC is rare. Scientific societies publish guidelines in order to improve patients' care. However, there are fields where evidence is lacking or there are many controversies. We aimed to spotlight the most important changes, as well as the points of controversy in the recently published guidelines for BE. For most, a length ≥1 cm of a salmon-pink mucosa extending above the eso-gastric junction is required in order to define BE, accompanied with the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) at histology. Screening with endoscopy for the general population is not recommended while there is no proof of the efficacy of screening for targeted high risk populations. New techniques permitting a cytologic examination are under evaluation and may change this strategy. The use of high-resolution endoscopes coupled with a careful inspection of the mucosa are required during surveillance of BE. New studies are necessary in order to clarify the real benefit from the use of advanced techniques, such as virtual chromoendoscopy. Length of non-dysplastic BE plays a role for the interval time determination between endoscopies during surveillance. Indefinite for dysplasia and even more low grade dysplasia (LGD) are debatable issues in the matter of BE. There are compelling data suggesting that a definite LGD, defined as a permanent lesion confirmed by a specialist pathologist in BE, has a more dismal prognosis than previously reported and an ablative intervention may be offered in this case. However, most (75-85%) cases with LGD were downstaged in published studies and it remains unknown if in real life, percentages of downstaging are approaching those of studies or there is an over-treatment of pseudo-LGD. Biomarkers such as p53 immunohistochemistry may aid better identification of patients at higher risk. For high grade dysplasia (HGD) visible lesions should be resected with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) while flat lesions ablated, for most, nowadays, with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not proved superior compared to EMR in BE. It has to be underlined that most studies leading to the new guidelines for BE are not considered of high quality and new guidelines may emerge in the near future.