Levels of evidence supporting drug, device, and other recommendations in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines

When cardiovascular medicines should be discontinued

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting Chinese clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs.

METHODS

CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time.

FINDINGS

Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).

A critical appraisal of acute sore throat guidelines using the AGREE II instrument: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Conflicting international guidelines exist on the management of sore throat by antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument the quality of guidelines for uncomplicated acute group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) sore-throat. To make a sensitivity analysis restricted to guidelines with a rigour of development score higher than 60% and to describe their recommendations on scores, tests, and antibiotic therapy, including their justification.

METHODS

A guideline literature review of acute GABHS sore throat, published between January 2000 and December 2019 in primary care and secondary care. The PubMed database, the Canadian Medical Association Infobase on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the International Network Guidelines were used. The quality of guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The guidelines were classified into 2 categories: high-quality guidelines had to rate >60% for the rigour of development score, the others were classified as low-quality guidelines.

RESULTS

Significant heterogeneity between the 15 guidelines concerned the scores of the 6 assessment domains. Among them, 6 guidelines presented a score above 60% with regards to the rigor of development domain and used a systematic literature search method, citing meta-analyses of recent randomised clinical trials. Most of the 6 high-quality guidelines no longer recommended the systematic use of diagnostic scores and tests, nor antibiotic therapy to prevent acute rheumatic fever or loco-regional complications, except for high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Major discrepancies emphasise the need for only high-quality guidelines, based on adequately assessed evidence. Restricted antibiotic prescriptions to severe cases or high-risk patients would avoid antibiotic resistance.

A systematic assessment of the characteristics of randomized controlled trials cited by acute coronary syndrome clinical practice guidelines

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe the methodological features of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited in American and European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Out of 2128 non-duplicated references cited in the 2013 and 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2017 and 2020 European Society of Cardiology CPGs for STEMI and NSTE-ACS, we extracted data for 407 RCTs (19.1% of total references). The majority were multicenter studies (81.8%), evaluated pharmacological interventions (63.1%), had a 2-arm (82.6%), and superiority (90.4%) design. Most RCTs (60.2%) had an active comparator, and 46.2% were funded by industry. The median observed sample size was 1001 patients (84.2% of RCTs achieved ≥80% of the intended sample size). Most RCTs had a single primary outcome (90.9%), which was a composite in just over half (51.9%). Among the RCTs testing for superiority, 44.0% reported a P-value of ≥0.05 for the primary outcome and 61.9% observed a risk reduction of >15%. The observed treatment effect was lower-than-expected in 67.6% of RCTs, with 34.4% having at least a 20% lower-than-expected treatment effect. The calculated post hoc statistical power was ≥80% for 33.9% of cited RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that RCTs cited by CPGs can still have significant methodological issues and limitations, highlighting that a better understanding of the methodological aspects of RCTs is crucial in order to formulate recommendations relevant to clinical practice.

Representativeness in randomised clinical trials supporting acute coronary syndrome guidelines

AIMS

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published to guide the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to critically appraise the representativeness and standard of care of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) supporting CPGs for ACS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

American and European CPGs for ST- and non-ST-elevation ACS were screened to extract all references (n = 2128) and recommendations (n = 600). Among the 407 primary publications of RCTs (19.1%), there were 52.6 and 73.2% recruiting patients in North America and Europe, respectively, whereas other regions were largely under-represented (e.g. 25.3% RCTs recruited in Asia). There was 68.6% RCTs enrolling patient with ACS, whereas the remaining 31.4% did not enrol any patient with ACS. There was under-representation of some important subgroups, including elderly, female (29.9%), and non-white patients (<20%). The incidence and type of reperfusion reported in these RCTs were not reflective of current clinical practice (the percentage of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among all RCTs was 42.7%; whereas for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction patients, the number of participants who underwent fibrinolysis was 3.3-fold higher than those who underwent primary PCI). All-cause mortality in these RCTs was 11.9% in RCTs with a follow-up ≤ 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Randomised clinical trials supporting CPGs for ACS are not fully representative of the diversity of the ACS population and their current standard of care. While some of these issues with representativeness may be explained by how evidence has been accrued over time, efforts should be made by trialists to ensure that the evidence supporting CPGs is representative of the wider ACS population.

Pragmatic Clinical Studies: An Emerging Clinical Research Discipline for Improving Evidence-Based Practice of Cardiovascular Diseases in Asia

Pragmatic clinical studies, as an emerging clinical research discipline, include a wide range of studies that are largely embedded with routine clinical practice aiming to evaluate comparative effectiveness and safety of different clinical intervention strategies. In this review, we described the evolution of the conceptual framework of pragmatic clinical studies, shared perspectives on the importance of pragmatic clinical studies for cardiovascular diseases as a complement to conventional randomized controlled trials, as well as highlighted the specific importance of pragmatic clinical research in improving evidence-based practice for cardiovascular disease managements in Asia.

Pragmatic clinical studies, an emerging clinical research discipline, include a wide range of studies that are largely embedded with routine clinical practice and aim to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of different clinical intervention strategies. Increased availability and quality of electronic medical/health records drives the development of pragmatic clinical studies. In this review, we describe evolution of the conceptual framework of pragmatic clinical studies and share perspectives on the importance of pragmatic clinical studies in evidence-based practice for cardiovascular diseases, as a complement to conventional randomized controlled trials. We also highlight specific needs of pragmatic clinical studies in improving evidence-based practice for cardiovascular disease in Asian countries. The main challenges of pragmatic clinical studies are discussed briefly in this review.

Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation.

RESULTS

For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.