NICE guideline on ME/CFS: robust advice based on a thorough review of the evidence.

In 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence produced an evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The guideline provides clear support for people living with ME/CFS, their families and carers, and for clinicians. A recent opinion piece published in the journal suggested that there were anomalies in the processing and interpretation of the evidence when developing the guideline and proposed eight areas where these anomalies were thought to have occurred. We outline how these opinions are based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the guideline process or the guideline, which provides a balanced and reasoned approach to the diagnosis and management of this challenging condition.

Core outcome sets through the healthcare ecosystem: the case of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly accepted that insufficient attention has been given to the patient health outcomes that are important to measure in comparative effectiveness research that will inform decision-making. The relationship between outcomes chosen for comparative effectiveness research, outcomes used in decision-making in routine care, and outcome data recorded in electronic health records (EHR) is also poorly understood. The COMET Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 3 Apr 2020) supports and encourages the development and use of 'core outcome sets' (COS), which represent the minimum set of patient health outcomes that should be measured and reported for a specific condition. There is growing interest in identifying how COS might fit into the different stages of the healthcare research and delivery ecosystem, and whether inclusion in the EHR might facilitate this. METHODS: We sought to determine the degree of overlap between outcomes within COS for research and routine care, EMA, FDA and NICE guidelines, NICE quality statements/indicators, EHR and a point-of-care randomised clinical trial, using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a case study. RESULTS: There is substantial agreement about important patient outcomes for T2D for research and healthcare, with associated coverage within the UK general practice EHR. CONCLUSIONS: This case study has demonstrated the potential for efficient research and value-based healthcare when the EHR can include COS for both research and care, where the COS comprises outcomes of importance to all relevant stakeholders. However, this concordance may not hold more generally, as the focus on patient-centred outcomes may well be greater in T2D than in other conditions. Work is ongoing to examine other clinical areas, in order to highlight any current inefficiencies when health outcomes in research and healthcare do not agree with core outcomes identified by patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Median life span of a cohort of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines was about 60 months.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the length of time National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines have remained valid. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The present study is a survival analysis of a cohort of published NICE clinical guidelines. The National Health Service in England and Wales uses NICE clinical practice guidelines as a reference for treatment and care of individuals. They need to be updated as new evidence arises, to remain credible and relevant, and are currently assessed 3 years after publication. RESULTS: Survival analysis suggested that about 86% of guidelines are still up-to-date 3 years after their publication. The median life span was 60 months (95% confidence interval: 51, 69). CONCLUSION: These findings are similar to those in other studies of the life span of guidelines. Efficient mechanisms must be in place to detect the minority of guidelines that become outdated quickly.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams.High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, normally under local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov to December 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions. We calculated risk ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). We sought details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the patient global impression of change (PGIC) at specific points, usually eight and 12 weeks. We regarded these outcomes as first-tier evidence. We regarded average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number and/or percentage of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline as second-tier evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies, involving 2073 participants; they were of generally good reporting quality; the control was 0.04% topical capsaicin to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported between studies, however, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.Four studies involved 1272 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. All efficacy outcomes were significantly better than control. At both eight and 12 weeks there was a significant benefit for high-concentration over low-concentration topical capsaicin for participants reporting themselves to be much or very much better, with point estimates of the NNTs of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) respectively. More participants had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with active treatment than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12.Two studies involved 801 participants with painful HIV-neuropathy. In a single study the NNT at 12 weeks for participants to be much or very much better was 5.8 (95% CI 3.8 to 12). Over both studies more participants had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with active treatment than control, with an NNT of 11.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (4.1%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events. No deaths were judged to be related to study medication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia and HIV-neuropathy generates more participants with high levels of pain relief than does control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. The additional proportion who benefit over control is not large, but for those who do obtain high levels of pain relief there are additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression and an improved quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is therefore similar to other therapies for chronic pain. In this case, the high cost of single and repeated applications suggest that high-concentration topical capsaicin is likely to be used when other available therapies have failed, and that it should probably not be used repeatedly without substantial documented pain relief. Even when efficacy is established, there are unknown risks, especially on epidermal innervation, of repeated application of long periods.

Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a system for rating the confidence in estimates of effect and grading guideline recommendations. It promotes evaluation of the quality of the evidence for each outcome and an assessment of balance between desirable and undesirable outcomes leading to a judgment about the strength of the recommendation. In 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence began introducing GRADE across its clinical guideline program to enable separation of judgments about the evidence quality from judgments about the strength of the recommendation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We describe the process of implementing GRADE across guidelines. RESULTS: Use of GRADE has been positively received by both technical staff and guideline development group members. CONCLUSION: A shift in thinking about confidence in the evidence was required leading to a more structured and transparent approach to decision making. Practical problems were also encountered; these have largely been resolved, but some areas require further work, including the application of imprecision and presenting results from analyses considering more than two alternative interventions. The use of GRADE for nonrandomized and diagnostic accuracy studies needs to be refined.

Use of qualitative research as evidence in the clinical guideline program of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

AIM: To describe the use of qualitative research as evidence in a national clinical guideline program (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence - NICE, UK) and to identify training needs for guideline developers. METHODS: All published NICE clinical guidelines from December 2002 to June 2007 were reviewed to determine whether qualitative studies were considered as evidence in the development of recommendations and how this type of evidence had been used. Developers of clinical guidelines due to be published between July 2007 and March 2008 were asked to describe their training needs regarding the use of qualitative research in clinical guidelines. Data were summarised using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 49 clinical guidelines published by NICE within the study period, nearly half (45%, 22/49) used qualitative studies as an evidence base for developing recommendations for clinical practice. The number of qualitative studies used in these clinical guidelines increased from 2003 to 2006: 9 studies in 2003; 41 studies in 2004; 60 studies in 2005; 139 studies in 2006. In terms of how qualitative evidence was used in the guidelines, the study identified the following main issues: inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe types of qualitative study design; lack of standardised search strategies and/or targeted processes to select studies from databases; lack of a standardised approach to quality appraisal and poor reporting of how the identified evidence was used to inform the relevant guideline recommendations. Of the 17 clinical guidelines in development during the study period, the questionnaire was returned by approximately half of the guideline developers (response rate 47%, 8/17). A wide range of training needs was identified, chiefly training in the identification, quality appraisal and synthesis of qualitative studies and guidance as to the guideline areas where qualitative studies should be considered as evidence. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research is increasingly being used by NICE's clinical guideline developers as an evidence base to generate clinical practice recommendations. There are, however, clear training needs for NICE's guideline developers in terms of how best to identify, quality appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence for use in evidence-based clinical guidelines.