Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as second-line treatment in autoimmune hepatitis: Is the evidence of sufficient quality to develop recommendations?

BACKGROUND: The standard management of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is based on corticosteroids, alone or in combination with azathioprine. Second-line treatments are needed for patients who have refractory disease. However, high-quality data on the alternative management of AIH are scarce. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and the quality of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data were performed. We calculated pooled event rates for three outcome measures: Biochemical remission, adverse events, and mortality, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The pooled biochemical remission rate was 68.9% (95%CI: 60.4-76.2) for tacrolimus, and 59.6% (95%CI: 54.8-64.2) for MMF, and rates of adverse events were 25.5% (95%CI: 12.4-45.3) for tacrolimus and 24.1% (95%CI: 15.4-35.7) for MMF. The pooled mortality rate was estimated at 11.5% (95%CI: 7.1-18.1) for tacrolimus and 9.01% (95%CI: 6.2-12.8) for MMF. Pooled biochemical remission rates for tacrolimus and MMF in patients with intolerance to standard therapy were 56.6% (CI: 43.4-56.6) vs 73.5% (CI: 58.1-84.7), and among non-responders were 59.1% (CI: 48.7-68.8) vs 40.8% (CI: 32.3-50.0), respectively. Moreover, the overall quality assessments using GRADE proved to be very low for all our outcomes in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus and MMF are in practice considered effective for patients with AIH who are non-responders or intolerant to first-line treatment, but we found no high-quality evidence to support this statement.

A Comparative Analysis of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Guideline Development Methodologies.

RATIONALE: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards for guideline development have had unintended negative consequences. A more efficient approach is desirable. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a modified Delphi process early during guideline development discriminates recommendations that should be informed by a systematic review from those that can be based upon expert consensus. METHODS: The same questions addressed by IOM-compliant pulmonary or critical care guidelines were addressed by expert panels using a modified Delphi process, termed the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. The resulting recommendations were compared. Concordance of the course of action, strength of recommendation, and quality of evidence, as well as the duration of recommendation development, were measured. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: When 50% agreement was required to make a recommendation, all questions yielded recommendations, and the recommended courses of action were 89.6% concordant. When 70% agreement was required, 17.9% of questions did not yield recommendations, but for those that did, the recommended courses of action were 98.2% concordant. The time to completion was shorter for the CORE process (median, 19.3 vs. 1,309.0 d; P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: We propose the CORE process as an early step in guideline creation. Questions for which 70% agreement on a recommendation cannot be achieved should go through an IOM-compliant process; however, questions for which 70% agreement on a recommendation can be achieved can be accepted, avoiding a lengthy systematic review.