Suggestions for improving guideline utility and trustworthiness

Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics

A vigorously debated issue in the psychiatric literature is whether long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) show clinical benefit over antipsychotics taken orally. In addressing this question, it is critical that systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments of trial data in a robust way and are free of undue industry influence. In this paper, we present a case analysis in which we identify some of the design problems in a recent systematic review on LAIs vs oral formulations. This case illustrates how evidence syntheses that are shaped by commercial interests may undermine patient-centered models of recovery and care. We offer recommendations that address both the bioethical and research design issues that arise in the systematic review process when researchers have financial conflicts of interest.

[Expectations of guideline developers on living guidelines]

BACKGROUND

Guidelines are central pillars of high-quality care and care planning. The quality requirements for the development of guidelines and the associated effort are very high. Therefore, more efficient approaches are being forced.

OBJECTIVE

The opportunities and challenges in the introduction of a dynamic updating concept within the framework of the digitalization of guidelines were explored from the perspective of guideline developers in the field of psychiatry. This perspective should be included in the implementation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January and May 2022 a cross-sectional survey was conducted among guideline developers (N = 561, response 39%) based on a questionnaire developed and tested in advance. Data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 60% were familiar with the concept of living guidelines. A large proportion endorsed a dynamic updating (83%) and digitalization (88%) of guidelines; however, various challenges are associated with the concept of living guidelines: the risk of inflationary changes (34%), the need for continuity of all actors (53%), involvement of patient and family representatives (37%) and definition of criteria regarding the decision what to change (38%). The vast majority (85%) thought it necessary that guideline development should be followed by implementation projects.

CONCLUSION

German guideline developers are very receptive regarding the implementation of living guidelines; however, they named numerous challenges, which need to be addressed in this approach.

Perspectives on clinical guidelines for severe behavioural problems in children across Europe: a qualitative study with mental health clinicians

Clinical guidelines for severe behavioural problems (SBPs) in children have recently been developed in several European countries. However, questions emerged regarding their applicability to practice. Our study aimed to provide a first European insight into guidelines' fitness-for-purpose by exploring mental health clinicians' familiarity with, use and perceived value of guidelines for SBPs in children. Participants included 161 clinicians, primarily psychiatrists, from 24 countries. Clinicians completed a semi-structured qualitative questionnaire on existing SBPs guidelines and development of new guidelines where not available. Clinicians' responses were mapped against academic experts' perceptions on SBPs guidelines highlighted in a previous study (Gatej et al. in Eur Psychiatry 57:1-9, 2019). Under half of the clinicians reported being unaware of guidelines. Of these, 37.6% represented countries where guidelines were available according to experts. The remaining half of clinicians who were aware of guidelines on average reported being moderately familiar with their content, perceiving them as moderately useful and using them some of the time. Additionally, 60.8% clinicians agreed that SBPs guidelines need to be developed, as these would create a shared scientific knowledge base and common practice. Guideline improvements included taking a multifactorial approach, creating specific case recommendations, and dissemination efforts. The modest familiarity with and use of guidelines amongst practitioners may highlight guidelines poor fitness-for-purpose, or, alternatively, an underlying confusion around the meaning and purpose of guidelines. Moving forward, efforts should be directed at disseminating clearer definitions of guidelines, addressing existing challenges, and unifying efforts to further develop and audit application of international guidelines for SBPs.

Awareness and perceptions of clinical guidelines for the diagnostics and treatment of severe behavioural problems in children across Europe: A qualitative survey with academic experts

BACKGROUND

Severe behavioural problems (SBPs¹) in childhood are highly prevalent, impair functioning, and predict negative outcomes later in life. Over the last decade, clinical practice guidelines for SBPs have been developed across Europe to facilitate the translation of scientific evidence into clinical practice. This study outlines the results of an investigation into academic experts' perspectives on the current prevalence, implementation, and utility of clinical guidelines for SBPs in children aged 6-12 across Europe.

METHODS

An online semi-structured questionnaire was completed by 28 psychiatry and psychology experts from 23 countries.

RESULTS

Experts indicated that approximately two thirds of the included European countries use at least an unofficial clinical document such as textbooks, while nearly half possess official guidelines for SBPs. Experts believed that, although useful for practice, guidelines' benefits would be maximised if they included more specific recommendations and were implemented more conscientiously. Similarly, experts suggested that unofficial clinical documents offer a wide range of treatment options to individualise treatment from. However, they stressed the need for more consistent, evidence-based clinical practices, by means of developing national and European clinical guidelines for SBPs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a preliminary insight into the current successes and challenges perceived by experts around Europe associated with guidelines and documents for SBPs, acting as a stepping stone for future systematic, in-depth investigations of guidelines. Additionally, it establishes experts' consensus for the need to develop official guidelines better tailored to clinical practice, creating a momentum for a transition towards European clinical guidelines for this population.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016

INTRODUCTION

The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the: diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS; provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS; administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual's needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.

Good intentions getting out of hand - is there a future for health care guidelines?

To date, the focus of research on guidelines has been directed toward professionals, and hospitals have merely served as the context. Little research has been performed on the dilemmas of guideline adherence in hospitals, as a setting in which multiple professional guidelines have to be implemented simultaneously; also, it is still unclear which clinical guidelines have to be aligned with other external demands, such as rules, regulations, standards, indicators, norms, and so on. Hence, different ways of studying the issue of guideline implementation are called for.

The future of lipid guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Factors influencing guideline development may result in paradigm shifts in treatment recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline provides an example of how new methodology and findings from randomized clinical trials can result in a paradigm shift in the approach to cardiovascular prevention. This guideline moved away from a treat to cholesterol goal approach. Based on strong evidence of a net benefit in randomized clinical trials, statins were recommended to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in four groups of patients most likely to benefit. In addition, improved risk prediction equations and shared decision-making were recommended for guiding statin initiation in primary prevention patients with LDL cholesterol ≤190 mg/dl. Future guidelines will address the role of nonstatins for cardiovascular prevention. Improved risk prediction in statin-treated patients with and without cardiovascular disease, estimation of the potential for net benefit, and shared decision-making should be integral components of the next guideline.

SUMMARY

Guidelines will continue to evolve as new data accumulate. New treatment paradigms will be needed to optimize patient outcomes.

Optimal use of external demands in hospitals - a Delphi study from the Netherlands

Background

Regulatory authorities focus on promoting compliance of hospitals with a variety of external demands. Due to the amount of these external demands, hospitals might prioritise to cope with the external demands. In this study, we explore to what extent a risk-based prioritisation system developed by one Dutch hospital, is applicable in other hospitals as well. The specific research question was: can a risk-based prioritisation system help hospitals cope with the pressures of external demands?

Methods

We conducted a Delphi study, containing three rounds with seven quality and safety managers. All participants were experienced in coping with external demands in Dutch hospitals in general and their own hospital specifically. These experts were granted access to a sample selection of a database containing about 1500 external demands (January 2014). Prior to the Delphi study, a baseline measurement was carried out, where all participants answered open-ended questions aimed at identifying existing practices, possible challenges concerning external demands and to prepare the survey for the group Delphi study.

Results

We identified a high level of consensus during our Delphi research. The experts agreed that at present, Dutch hospitals do not cope with external demands systematically. The participants agreed that the database and the risk-based prioritisation system are useful tools to cope with the amount of external demands and indicated that they would also like to use these tools themselves in the future.

Conclusions

In this study, the participants agreed that the database and the risk-based prioritisation system are both applicable and useful tools to cope with the amount of external demands. Further research addressing the use of the risk-based-priority system for specific subsets of external demand is also needed.

[Guideline development: Going from evidence to recommendations. Challenges and opportunities--a methodologist's view]

The development of evidence-based guidelines is an interdisciplinary process in which methodologists play an important role. In addition to creating new or assessing existing systematic reviews as a basis for evidence-based decision making, methodologists can support the entire development process. Due to the increasing complexity of methods and the information overload of available publications, cooperation between the involved experts (especially clinicians and methodologists, but also patient representatives) is essential in order to develop reliable, acceptable and practical guidelines. This article looks at eight key points of the guideline development process (transparency, conflicts of interest, composition of guideline development group, establishing evidence foundation, development and formulation of recommendations, external review and updating) from the perspective of methodologists, and highlights problems, challenges and solution approaches. The earliest possible involvement of methodologists, a clear and a--for non-methodologists--understandable presentation of the best available evidence, the integration of methodologists in the creation and formulation of recommendations (systematic, evidence-based decision-making process) and cooperation between the participating experts are essential to improve the development process of evidence-based guidelines.

Evidence assessments and guideline recommendations in Lyme disease: the clinical management of known tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with Lyme disease were developed by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). The guidelines address three clinical questions - the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis for known tick bites, the effectiveness of erythema migrans treatment and the role of antibiotic retreatment in patients with persistent manifestations of Lyme disease. Healthcare providers who evaluate and manage patients with Lyme disease are the intended users of the new ILADS guidelines, which replace those issued in 2004 (Exp Rev Anti-infect Ther 2004;2:S1-13). These clinical practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians by presenting evidence-based treatment recommendations, which follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. ILADS guidelines are not intended to be the sole source of guidance in managing Lyme disease and they should not be viewed as a substitute for clinical judgment nor used to establish treatment protocols.