2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

Practice Guideline Update Recommendations Summary: Disorders of Consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition on minimally conscious state (MCS) and provide care recommendations for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (DoC). METHODS: Recommendations were based on systematic review evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences using a modified Delphi consensus process according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians should identify and treat confounding conditions, optimize arousal, and perform serial standardized assessments to improve diagnostic accuracy in adults and children with prolonged DoC (Level B). Clinicians should counsel families that for adults, MCS (vs vegetative state [VS]/ unresponsive wakefulness syndrome [UWS]) and traumatic (vs nontraumatic) etiology are associated with more favorable outcomes (Level B). When prognosis is poor, long-term care must be discussed (Level A), acknowledging that prognosis is not universally poor (Level B). Structural MRI, SPECT, and the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised can assist prognostication in adults (Level B); no tests are shown to improve prognostic accuracy in children. Pain always should be assessed and treated (Level B) and evidence supporting treatment approaches discussed (Level B). Clinicians should prescribe amantadine (100-200 mg bid) for adults with traumatic VS/UWS or MCS (4-16 weeks post injury) to hasten functional recovery and reduce disability early in recovery (Level B). Family counseling concerning children should acknowledge that natural history of recovery, prognosis, and treatment are not established (Level B). Recent evidence indicates that the term chronic VS/UWS should replace permanent VS, with duration specified (Level B). Additional recommendations are included.

Comprehensive Systematic Review Update Summary: Disorders of Consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days. METHODS: Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. RESULTS: No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. METHODS: Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.

Vestibular Rehabilitation for Peripheral Vestibular Hypofunction: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION NEUROLOGY SECTION.

BACKGROUND: Uncompensated vestibular hypofunction results in postural instability, visual blurring with head movement, and subjective complaints of dizziness and/or imbalance. We sought to answer the question, "Is vestibular exercise effective at enhancing recovery of function in people with peripheral (unilateral or bilateral) vestibular hypofunction?" METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in 5 databases published after 1985 and 5 additional sources for relevant publications were searched. Article types included meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case control series, and case series for human subjects, published in English. One hundred thirty-five articles were identified as relevant to this clinical practice guideline. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of benefit over harm, clinicians should offer vestibular rehabilitation to persons with unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction with impairments and functional limitations related to the vestibular deficit. Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of harm over benefit, clinicians should not include voluntary saccadic or smooth-pursuit eye movements in isolation (ie, without head movement) as specific exercises for gaze stability. Based on moderate evidence, clinicians may offer specific exercise techniques to target identified impairments or functional limitations. Based on moderate evidence and in consideration of patient preference, clinicians may provide supervised vestibular rehabilitation. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence, clinicians may prescribe a minimum of 3 times per day for the performance of gaze stability exercises as 1 component of a home exercise program. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence (range of supervised visits: 2-38 weeks, mean = 10 weeks), clinicians may consider providing adequate supervised vestibular rehabilitation sessions for the patient to understand the goals of the program and how to manage and progress themselves independently. As a general guide, persons without significant comorbidities that affect mobility and with acute or subacute unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week supervised sessions for 2 to 3 weeks; persons with chronic unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 4 to 6 weeks; and persons with bilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 8 to 12 weeks. In addition to supervised sessions, patients are provided a daily home exercise program. DISCLAIMER: These recommendations are intended as a guide for physical therapists and clinicians to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for persons with peripheral vestibular hypofunction undergoing vestibular rehabilitation.Video Abstract available for more insights from the author (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A124).

The Impact of Social Media on Dissemination and Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that provide recommendations to optimize patient care for a specific clinical problem or question. Merely reading a guideline rarely leads to implementation of recommendations. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has a formal process of guideline development and dissemination. The last few years have seen a burgeoning of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and newer methods of dissemination such as podcasts and webinars. The role of these media in guideline dissemination has not been studied. Systematic evaluation of dissemination methods and comparison of the effectiveness of newer methods with traditional methods is not available. It is also not known whether specific dissemination methods may be more effectively targeted to specific audiences. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to (1) develop an innovative dissemination strategy by adding social media-based dissemination methods to traditional methods for the AAN clinical practice guidelines "Complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis" ("CAM in MS") and (2) evaluate whether the addition of social media outreach improves awareness of the CPG and knowledge of CPG recommendations, and affects implementation of those recommendations. METHODS: Outcomes were measured by four surveys in each of the two target populations: patients and physicians/clinicians ("physicians"). The primary outcome was the difference in participants' intent to discuss use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with their physicians or patients, respectively, after novel dissemination, as compared with that after traditional dissemination. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness of the CPG, knowledge of CPG content, and behavior regarding CAM use in multiple sclerosis (MS). RESULTS: Response rates were 25.08% (622/2480) for physicians and 43.5% (348/800) for patients. Awareness of the CPG increased after traditional dissemination (absolute difference, 95% confidence interval: physicians 36%, 95% CI 25-46, and patients 10%, 95% CI 1-11) but did not increase further after novel dissemination (physicians 0%, 95% CI -11 to 11, and patients -4%, 95% CI -6 to 14). Intent to discuss CAM also increased after traditional dissemination but did not change after novel dissemination (traditional: physicians 12%, 95% CI 2-22, and patients 19%, 95% CI 3-33; novel: physicians 11%, 95% CI -1 to -21, and patients -8%, 95% CI -22 to 8). Knowledge of CPG recommendations and behavior regarding CAM use in MS did not change after either traditional dissemination or novel dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Social media-based dissemination methods did not confer additional benefit over print-, email-, and Internet-based methods in increasing CPG awareness and changing intent in physicians or patients. Research on audience selection, message formatting, and message delivery is required to utilize Web 2.0 technologies optimally for dissemination.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

A memorandum of understanding has facilitated guideline development involving collaborating groups.

OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay.

An evidence-based methodology for systematic evaluation of clinical outcome assessment measures for traumatic brain injury.

INTRODUCTION: The high failure rate of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be attributable, in part, to the use of untested or insensitive measurement instruments. Of more than 1,000 clinical outcome assessment measures (COAs) for TBI, few have been systematically vetted to determine their performance within specific "contexts of use (COU)." As described in guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the COU specifies the population of interest and the purpose for which the COA will be employed. COAs are commonly used for screening, diagnostic categorization, outcome prediction, and establishing treatment effectiveness. COA selection typically relies on expert consensus; there is no established methodology to match the appropriateness of a particular COA to a specific COU. We developed and pilot-tested the Evidence-Based Clinical Outcome assessment Platform (EB-COP) to systematically and transparently evaluate the suitability of TBI COAs for specific purposes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Following a review of existing literature and published guidelines on psychometric standards for COAs, we developed a 6-step, semi-automated, evidence-based assessment platform to grade COA performance for six specific purposes: diagnosis, symptom detection, prognosis, natural history, subgroup stratification and treatment effectiveness. Mandatory quality indicators (QIs) were identified for each purpose using a modified Delphi consensus-building process. The EB-COP framework was incorporated into a Qualtrics software platform and pilot-tested on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE), the most widely-used COA in TBI clinical studies. CONCLUSION: The EB-COP provides a systematic methodology for conducting more precise, evidence-based assessment of COAs by evaluating performance within specific COUs. The EB-COP platform was shown to be feasible when applied to a TBI COA frequently used to detect treatment effects and can be modified to address other populations and COUs. Additional testing and validation of the EB-COP are warranted.

Practice guideline update summary: Mild cognitive impairment: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2001 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline on mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: The guideline panel systematically reviewed MCI prevalence, prognosis, and treatment articles according to AAN evidence classification criteria, and based recommendations on evidence and modified Delphi consensus. RESULTS: MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. Cumulative dementia incidence was 14.9% in individuals with MCI older than age 65 years followed for 2 years. No high-quality evidence exists to support pharmacologic treatments for MCI. In patients with MCI, exercise training (6 months) is likely to improve cognitive measures and cognitive training may improve cognitive measures. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians should assess for MCI with validated tools in appropriate scenarios (Level B). Clinicians should evaluate patients with MCI for modifiable risk factors, assess for functional impairment, and assess for and treat behavioral/neuropsychiatric symptoms (Level B). Clinicians should monitor cognitive status of patients with MCI over time (Level B). Cognitively impairing medications should be discontinued where possible and behavioral symptoms treated (Level B). Clinicians may choose not to offer cholinesterase inhibitors (Level B); if offering, they must first discuss lack of evidence (Level A). Clinicians should recommend regular exercise (Level B). Clinicians may recommend cognitive training (Level C). Clinicians should discuss diagnosis, prognosis, long-term planning, and the lack of effective medicine options (Level B), and may discuss biomarker research with patients with MCI and families (Level C).

Comprehensive systematic review update summary: Disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days. METHODS: Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. RESULTS: No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

Practice guideline update recommendations summary: Disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition on minimally conscious state (MCS) and provide care recommendations for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (DoC). METHODS: Recommendations were based on systematic review evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences using a modified Delphi consensus process according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians should identify and treat confounding conditions, optimize arousal, and perform serial standardized assessments to improve diagnostic accuracy in adults and children with prolonged DoC (Level B). Clinicians should counsel families that for adults, MCS (vs vegetative state [VS]/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome [UWS]) and traumatic (vs nontraumatic) etiology are associated with more favorable outcomes (Level B). When prognosis is poor, long-term care must be discussed (Level A), acknowledging that prognosis is not universally poor (Level B). Structural MRI, SPECT, and the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised can assist prognostication in adults (Level B); no tests are shown to improve prognostic accuracy in children. Pain always should be assessed and treated (Level B) and evidence supporting treatment approaches discussed (Level B). Clinicians should prescribe amantadine (100-200 mg bid) for adults with traumatic VS/UWS or MCS (4-16 weeks post injury) to hasten functional recovery and reduce disability early in recovery (Level B). Family counseling concerning children should acknowledge that natural history of recovery, prognosis, and treatment are not established (Level B). Recent evidence indicates that the term chronic VS/UWS should replace permanent VS, with duration specified (Level B). Additional recommendations are included.

Practice guideline recommendations summary: Disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed DMT recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review; followed an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement; and developed modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations concerning starting, switching, and stopping DMTs pertinent to people with relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, primary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndromes of demyelination. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from one or more sources: systematic review, related evidence (evidence not from the systematic review), principles of care, and inference from evidence. RESULTS: Thirty recommendations were developed: 17 on starting DMTs, including recommendations on who should start them; 10 on switching DMTs if breakthrough disease develops; and 3 on stopping DMTs. Recommendations encompassed patient engagement strategies and individualization of treatment, including adherence monitoring and disease comorbidity assessment. The panel also discussed DMT risks, including counseling about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk in people with MS using natalizumab, fingolimod, rituximab, ocrelizumab, and dimethyl fumarate; and made suggestions for future research to evaluate relative merits of early treatment with higher potency DMTs vs standard stepped-care protocols, DMT comparative effectiveness, optimal switching strategies, long-term effects of DMT use, definitions of highly active MS, and effects of treatment on patient-specified priority outcomes. This guideline reflects the complexity of decision-making for starting, switching, or stopping MS DMTs. The field of MS treatment is rapidly changing; the Academy of Neurology development process includes planning for future updates.

Comprehensive systematic review summary: Disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

OBJECTIVE: To review evidence on starting, switching, and stopping disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), and progressive MS forms. METHODS: Relevant, peer-reviewed research articles, systematic reviews, and abstracts were identified (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE searched from inception to November 2016). Studies were rated using the therapeutic classification scheme. Prior published Cochrane reviews were also used. RESULTS: Twenty Cochrane reviews and an additional 73 full-text articles were selected for data extraction through an updated systematic review (completed November 2016). For people with RRMS, many DMTs are superior to placebo (annualized relapses rates [ARRs], new disease activity [new MRI T2 lesion burden], and in-study disease progression) (see summary and full text publications). For people with RRMS who experienced a relapse on interferon-ß (IFN-ß) or glatiramer acetate, alemtuzumab is more effective than IFN-ß-1a 44 µg subcutaneous 3 times per week in reducing the ARR. For people with primary progressive MS, ocrelizumab is probably more effective than placebo (in-study disease progression). DMTs for MS have varying adverse effects. In people with CIS, glatiramer acetate and IFN-ß-1a subcutaneous 3 times per week are more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Cladribine, immunoglobulins, IFN-ß-1a 30 µg intramuscular weekly, IFN-ß-1b subcutaneous alternate day, and teriflunomide are probably more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Suggestions for future research include studies considering comparative effectiveness, usefulness of high-efficacy treatment vs stepped-care protocols, and research into predictive biomarkers.

Neurology advanced practice providers: A position paper of the American Academy of Neurology.

There are many factors driving health care reform, including unsustainable costs, poor outcomes, an aging populace, and physician shortages. These issues are particularly relevant to neurology. New reimbursement models are based on value and facilitated by the use of multidisciplinary teams. Integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into neurology practice offers many advantages with new models of care. Conversely, there are many and varied challenges financially and logistically with these practice models. The American Academy of Neurology has formed a Work Group to address the needs of both neurologists and neurologic APPs and monitor the effect of APPs on quality and cost of neurologic care.