A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys

OBJECTIVE

Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus.

RESULTS

The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data.

RESULTS

We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.

CONSENSUS

The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4.

DISSEMINATION

We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.

CONCLUSION

Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: Current state and suggestions for improvement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates.

RESULTS

In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n=5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%).

CONCLUSION

Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form.

MAIN RESULTS

The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

PROTOCOL: Guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations

CLINICAL QUESTION

In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Plasma exchange and glucocorticoid dosing for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTIONS

What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes).

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases is an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline. The aim is to assist clinicians caring for individuals with glomerulonephritis (GN), both adults and children. The scope includes various glomerular diseases, including IgA nephropathy and IgA vasculitis, membranous nephropathy, nephrotic syndrome, minimal change disease (MCD), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), infection-related GN, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) vasculitis, lupus nephritis, and anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody GN. In addition, this guideline will be the first to address the subtype of complement-mediated diseases. Each chapter follows the same format providing guidance related to diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and special situations. The goal of the guideline is to generate a useful resource for clinicians and patients by providing actionable recommendations based on evidence syntheses, with useful infographics incorporating views from experts in the field. Another aim is to propose research recommendations for areas where there are gaps in knowledge. The guideline targets a broad global audience of clinicians treating GN while being mindful of implications for policy and cost. Development of this guideline update followed an explicit process whereby treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies, and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, with areas of future research also presented.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain: a mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 17 March 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting values and preferences towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain.

REVIEW METHODS

We analysed data using meta-narrative synthesis (quantitative findings were qualitised) and tabulated review findings according to identified themes. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 1838 initial records, 15 studies proved eligible for review. High to moderate certainty evidence showed that patient's use of medical cannabis for chronic pain was influenced by both positive (eg, support from friends and family) and negative social factors (eg, stigma surrounding cannabis use). Most patients using medical cannabis favoured products with balanced ratios of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), or high levels of CBD, but not high THC preparations. Many valued the effectiveness of medical cannabis for symptom management even when experiencing adverse events related to concentration, memory or fatigue. Reducing use of prescription medication was a motivating factor for use of medical cannabis, and concerns regarding addiction, losing control or acting strangely were disincentives. Out-of-pocket costs were a barrier, whereas legalisation of medical cannabis improved access and incentivised use.Low to very low certainty evidence suggested highly variable values towards medical cannabis among people living with chronic pain. Individuals with pain related to life-limiting disease were more willing to use medical cannabis, and preferred oral over inhaled administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight factors that clinicians should consider when discussing medical cannabis. The variability of patients' values and preferences emphasise the need for shared decision making when considering medical cannabis for chronic pain.

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline.

METHODS

The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options.

METHODS

Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies.

RESULTS

17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020159284.

SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: Synopsis of the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization developed a clinical practice guideline in 2020 for the management of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

The KDIGO Work Group (WG) was tasked with developing the guideline for diabetes management in CKD. It defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined systematic review topics, and graded evidence that had been summarized by an evidence review team. The English-language literature searches, which were initially done through October 2018, were updated in February 2020. The WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of the recommendations. Expert judgment was used to develop consensus practice points supplementary to the evidence-based graded recommendations. The guideline document underwent open public review. Comments from various stakeholders, subject matter experts, and industry and national organizations were considered before the document was finalized.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline includes 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD. This synopsis focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and educational and integrated care approaches.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION

The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19.

UPDATES

This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

READERS NOTE

This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

BACKGROUND

There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.

METHOD

We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients’ values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients’ decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients’ values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients’ perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature.

SUMMARY OF METHOD

The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations.

CONCLUSION

We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

Executive summary of the 2020 KDIGO Diabetes Management in CKD Guideline: evidence-based advances in monitoring and treatment

THE KIDNEY DISEASE

Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease represents the first KDIGO guideline on this subject. The guideline comes at a time when advances in diabetes technology and therapeutics offer new options to manage the large population of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at high risk of poor health outcomes. An enlarging base of high-quality evidence from randomized clinical trials is available to evaluate important new treatments offering organ protection, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The goal of the new guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize the clinical care of people with diabetes and CKD by integrating new options with existing management strategies. In addition, the guideline contains practice points to facilitate implementation when insufficient data are available to make well-justified recommendations or when additional guidance may be useful for clinical application. The guideline covers comprehensive care of patients with diabetes and CKD, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and self-management and health systems approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates

This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.

Clinical question

What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?

Context

The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.

What is new?

The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.

About this guideline

This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.

Future recommendations

Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study

OBJECTIVE

To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.

DESIGN

Instrument development and reliability study.

DATA SOURCES

Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.

PARTICIPANTS

With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.

RESULTS

The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

METHODS

This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

DISCUSSION

We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty).

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

CURRENT PRACTICE

Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years.

DESIGN

We performed an update of a Cochrane systematic review, and performed network meta-analysis comparing randomised trials evaluating colorectal cancer screening with guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (annual, biennial), faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (annual, biennial), sigmoidoscopy (once-only) or colonoscopy (once-only) in a healthy population, aged 50-79 years. We conducted subgroup analysis on sex. Follow-up >5 years was required for analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

RESULTS

12 randomised trials proved eligible. Compared with no-screening, we found high certainty evidence for sigmoidoscopy screening slightly reducing colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI 0.70 to 0.83) and mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80), while gFOBT screening had little or no difference on colorectal cancer incidence, but slightly reduced colorectal cancer mortality (annual: RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86, biennial: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93). No screening test reduced mortality nor incidence by more than six per 1000 screened over 15 years. Sigmoidoscopy had a greater effect in men, for both colorectal cancer incidence (women: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92, men: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79), and mortality (women: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, men: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 15-year perspective, sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, while sigmoidoscopy, annual and biennial gFOBT all reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Sigmoidoscopy may reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more in men than in women.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018093401.

AGA Technical Review on the Evaluation of Functional Diarrhea and Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults (IBS-D)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The evaluation of patients with chronic watery diarrhea represents a diagnostic challenge for clinicians because organic causes, including inflammatory bowel disease, microscopic colitis, and chronic infection, must be differentiated from functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the usefulness of diagnostic tests in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, from 1978 until April 2017. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies reporting on the use of fecal and blood tests for the evaluation of adult patients with functional diarrhea, including irritable bowel syndrome. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II, and the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the proportion of patients with true and false positive and negative results. We evaluated the following tests: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, fecal calprotectin, serologic tests for celiac disease, tests for bile acid diarrhea, the commercially available version of anti-cytolethal distending toxin B and anti-vinculin antibodies, and tests for Giardia infection. We did not evaluate breath tests for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as they are not part of a standard diarrhea workup.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies proved eligible to evaluate 1 or more of these tests. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were similar at discriminating organic from functional disease, with sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.54-0.78 and 0.46-0.95 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate and 0.73 and 0.78 for C-reactive protein. Among fecal tests, fecal calprotectin in a range of 50-60 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.86; pooled specificity 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92) and fecal lactoferrin in a range of 4.0-7.25 μg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; pooled specificity 0.93; 95%CI 0.63-0.99) presented the lowest proportion of false-negative results (low certainty in the evidence). Among tests for celiac disease, IgA tissue transglutaminase presented the best diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity range, 0.79-0.99; specificity range, 0.90-0.99) with moderate certainty in the evidence. Among tests for bile acid diarrhea, the ⁷⁵selenium homotaurocholic acid test performed better than serum fibroblast growth factor 19 and 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, but is not available in the United States. There was insufficient evidence to recommend serologic tests for irritable bowel syndrome at this time. There are several good diagnostic tests for Giardia infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to low certainty in the evidence indicates that available fecal and blood tests may play a role in the diagnostic workup of adult patients with functional diarrhea. At the moment, no tests are available to reliably rule in irritable bowel syndrome.

Pregnancy as a risk factor for severe influenza infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

WHO identifies pregnant women to be at increased risk for severe outcomes from influenza virus infections and recommends that they be prioritized for influenza vaccination. The evidence supporting this, however, is inconsistent. Ecologic studies in particular suggest more severe outcomes from influenza infection during pregnancy than studies based on individual patient data. Individual studies however may be underpowered and, as reported in a previous systematic review, confounding factors could not be adjusted for. We therefore conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the risk for severe outcomes of influenza infection in pregnant women while adjusting for other prognostic factors.

METHODS

We contacted authors of studies included in a recently published systematic review. We pooled the individual participant data of women of reproductive age and laboratory confirmation of influenza virus infection. We used a generalized linear mixed model and reported odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 33 datasets with data on 186,656 individuals were available, including 36,498 eligible women of reproductive age and known pregnancy status. In the multivariable model, pregnancy was associated with a 7 times higher risk of hospital admission (OR 6.80, 95%CI 6.02-7.68), among patients receiving medical care as in- or outpatients, pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of admission to intensive care units (ICU; OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.48-0.69), and was not significantly associated with death (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.75-1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found a higher risk of influenza associated hospitalization among pregnant women as compared to non-pregnant women. We did not find a higher mortality rate or higher likelihood of ICU admission among pregnant women who sought medical care. However, this study did not address whether a true community based cohort of pregnant women is at higher risk of influenza associated complications.

Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those ≤30 years old).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach.

THE EVIDENCE

The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years' follow-up.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline.

BMJ Rapid Recommendations: A Possible Revolution in Clinical Practice Guidelines

BMJ rapid recommendations hold the potential to revolutionize clinical practice guidelines, achieving both timeliness, trustworthiness, and usefulness to clinicians and patients to allow well informed decisions in clinical practice.

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery.

CURRENT PRACTICE

SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.

[The BMJ Rapid Recommendations: towards a new model for the production of clinical practice guidelines]

Guidelines play a central role in clinical practice, but their development often does not meet trustworthiness standards, which makes them vulnerable to conflict of interest. Additional problems -include their insufficient updating, and current formats that do not support shared decision-making. To address these issues, we have created the Rapid Recommendations, in collaboration with the British -Medical Journal. In this innovative approach, we a) identify new practice-changing evidence ; b) incorporate them in updated -systematics reviews in about 45 days ; c) gather an international and unconflicted panel including patients and d) publish trust-worthy recommendation in about 90 days, along with new multilayered evidence summaries and tools that facilitate shared decision-making.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for acute high risk transient ischaemic attack and minor ischaemic stroke: a clinical practice guideline

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER HIGH RISK TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK OR MINOR STROKE? SPECIFICALLY, DOES DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY WITH A COMBINATION OF ASPIRIN AND CLOPIDOGREL LEAD TO A GREATER REDUCTION IN RECURRENT STROKE AND DEATH OVER THE USE OF ASPIRIN ALONE WHEN GIVEN IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS AFTER A HIGH RISK TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK OR MINOR ISCHAEMIC STROKE? AN EXPERT PANEL PRODUCED A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR INITIATING DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE ONSET OF SYMPTOMS, AND FOR CONTINUING IT FOR 10-21 DAYS CURRENT PRACTICE IS TYPICALLY TO USE A SINGLE DRUG.

Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.

CONCLUSION

The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095585.

Psychosocial stimulation interventions for children with severe acute malnutrition: a systematic review

Background

The WHO Guidelines for the inpatient treatment of severely malnourished children include a recommendation to provide sensory stimulation or play therapy for children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). This systematic review was performed to synthesize evidence around this recommendation. Specifically, the objective was to answer the question: “In children with severe acute malnutrition, does psychosocial stimulation improve child developmental, nutritional, or other outcomes?”

Methods

A review protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016036403). MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched with terms related to SAM and psychosocial stimulation. Studies were selected if they applied a stimulation intervention in children with SAM and child developmental and nutritional outcomes were assessed. Findings were presented within a narrative synthesis and a summary of findings table. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Findings

Only two studies, both non–randomized controlled trials, met the selection criteria for this review. One was conducted in Jamaica (1975) with a follow–up period of 14 years; the other was done in Bangladesh (2002) with a six–month follow–up. At the individual study level, each of the included studies demonstrated significant differences in child development outcomes between intervention and control groups. Only the study conducted in Bangladesh demonstrated a clinically significant increase in weight–for–age z–scores in the intervention group compared to the control group.

Conclusions

The evidence supporting the recommendation of psychosocial stimulation for children with SAM is not only sparse, but also of very low quality across important outcomes. High–quality trials are needed to determine the effects of psychosocial stimulation interventions on outcomes in children with SAM.

Effect of Plant Protein on Blood Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

There is a heightened interest in plant‐based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention. Although plant protein is thought to mediate such prevention through modifying blood lipids, the effect of plant protein in specific substitution for animal protein on blood lipids remains unclear. To assess the effect of this substitution on established lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

Methods and Results

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry were searched through September 9, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥3 weeks comparing the effect of plant protein in substitution for animal protein on low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I² statistic). The overall quality (certainty) of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. One‐hundred twelve randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria. Plant protein in substitution for animal protein decreased low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.20 to −0.12 mmol/L; P<0.00001; I²=55%; moderate‐quality evidence), non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.18 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.22 to −0.14 mmol/L; P<0.00001; I²=52%; moderate‐quality evidence), and apolipoprotein B by 0.05 g/L (95% confidence interval, −0.06 to −0.03 g/L; P<0.00001; I²=30%; moderate‐quality evidence).

Conclusions

Substitution of plant protein for animal protein decreases the established lipid targets low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. More high‐quality randomized trials are needed to improve our estimates.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02037321.