2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: Thirty-five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first-line SARD-ILD treatment, treatment of SARD-ILD progression despite first-line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis-ILD as a first-line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first-line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Assessing Patient Values and Preferences to Inform the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/American College of Chest Physicians Interstitial Lung Disease Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Patient engagement is critical to clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. This work presents our approach to ascertaining patients' values and preferences to inform the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study of a purposefully sampled Patient Panel using a modified content analytic approach. The study team reviewed text transcripts from the Patient Panel discussion to identify themes and develop a clustered thematic schema. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (75% women) participated, with a mean age of 53 years (range 33-73). Patients had one or more SARDs: systemic sclerosis (38%), Sjögren disease (38%), idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (33%), rheumatoid arthritis (24%), and mixed connective tissue disease (10%). We identified 10 themes in 4 thematic clusters: communication, screening and monitoring, treatment goals, and treatment adverse effects. Patients prioritized recognizing ILD symptoms, importance of ILD screening and close monitoring, goals of survival and improving quality of life, and willingness to accept treatment risks provided that there is close communication with providers. Patient representatives shared patients' priorities and insight at the Voting Panel meeting, influencing multiple guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Patient engagement fosters a holistic approach to CPG development, leading to recommendations aiming for the best clinical outcomes while prioritizing outcomes important for patients. The patient-identified themes played a critical role in ILD guideline development and provide core elements for shared decision-making as clinicians make management and therapeutic decisions with patients with SARD-associated ILD.

How to recognize a trustworthy clinical practice guideline.

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines represent a fundamental tool to summarize relevant evidence regarding a set of clinical choices and provide guidance for making optimal clinical decisions. Clinicians must differentiate between guidelines that provide trustworthy evidence guidance and those that do not. We present six questions clinicians should ask when evaluating a guideline's trustworthiness. (1) Are the recommendations clear?; (2) Have the panelists considered all alternatives?; (3) Have the panelists considered all patient-important outcomes?; (4) Is the recommendation based on an up-to-date systematic review?; (5) Is the strength of the recommendation compatible with the certainty of the evidence?; (6) Might conflicts of interest influence the recommendations? If yes, were they managed? Once the conclude they are dealing with a trustworthy guideline, clinicians must gain an understanding of the transparent evidence summary that the guideline will offer, and judge the applicability of trustworthy recommendations to their patients and settings. Consideration of the circumstances and values and preferences of patients will be crucial for all weak or conditional recommendations.

GRADE summary of findings tables enhanced understanding of values and preferences evidence.

OBJECTIVES: We conceptualize patient values and preferences as the relative importance of health outcomes (RIO) which are often obtained through utility elicitation research. A transparent and structured approach to present synthesized RIO evidence and the certainty of this evidence is needed. This study aims to adapt the summary of findings (SoF) table to describe the RIO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed three interactive workshops with a protype version of the SoF table for RIO, evidence adapted from the SoF table for intervention effects. We then tested the new format through semi-structured interviews with professionals who interpret RIO evidence (e.g., systematic review authors and guideline developers). RESULTS: We adapted the SoF table for the presentation of RIO evidence. This SoF table may be easy to use, but bears one risk: some participants misunderstood the utility information and the variability around the RIO. We added a visual analogue scale to clarify the concept of utilities. CONCLUSION: Through a multi-stage process including brainstorming sessions and interviews, we adapted the SoF table to present RIO evidence. This table may enhance understanding of evidence synthesis of values and preferences, facilitating the incorporation of this type of evidence in decision-making.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendation for the Use of COVID-19 Vaccination for Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). METHODS: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel including rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, vaccine experts, and patients. The panel used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Outcomes were prioritized according to their importance for patients and clinicians. Evidence from the COVID-19 clinical trials was summarized. Indirect evidence for non-COVID-19 vaccines in ARD was also considered. The GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to develop a recommendation for the use of the 4 COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada as of March 25, 2021 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, and Ad26.COV2.S), over 4 virtual panel meetings. RESULTS: The CRA guideline panel suggests using COVID-19 vaccination in persons with ARD. The panel unanimously agreed that for the majority of patients, the potential health benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms in people with ARDs. The recommendation was graded as conditional because of low or very low certainty of the evidence on the effects in the population of interest, primarily due to indirectness and imprecise effect estimates. The panel felt strongly that persons with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who meet local eligibility should not be required to take additional steps compared to people without ARDs to obtain their vaccination. Guidance on medications, implementation, monitoring of vaccine uptake, and research priorities are also provided. CONCLUSION: This recommendation will be updated over time as new evidence emerges, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and EtD available on the CRA website.

Assessing Patient Perspectives on Receiving Bad News: A Survey of 1337 Patients With Life-Changing Diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for breaking bad news are largely directed at and validated in oncology patients, based on expert opinion, and neglect those with other diagnoses. We sought to determine whether existing guidelines for breaking bad news, particularly SPIKES, are consistent with patient preferences across patient populations. METHODS: Patients from an online community responded to 5 open-ended and 11 Likert-scale questions identifying their preferences in having bad news delivered. Patient participants received a diagnosis of cancer, lupus, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's disease. Additionally, we surveyed all 14 English-curriculum Canadian medical schools regarding resources used to teach breaking bad news. RESULTS: Ten of 12 responding schools used the SPIKES model. Preferences of 1337 patients were consistent with the recommendations of SPIKES. There was one exception: Most patients disagree that empathetic physical touch is important and some described apprehension. Responses were consistent across disease states. Content analysis of 220 open-ended patient responses revealed 16 patient-important themes. Themes were largely addressed by the SPIKES guidelines, but five were not: ensuring timely follow-up is planned; offering informational sheets about the diagnosis; offering contact information of support organizations, with some patients preferring patient support groups while others preferring counselors; and conveying a sense of determination to aid the patient through the diagnosis. The four most patient-important components of SPIKES were physicians conveying empathy, taking their time, explaining the diagnosis and its implications, and asking the patient if they understand. CONCLUSION: SPIKES is the most commonly taught framework for breaking bad news in Canadian medical schools. This is the first work to demonstrate that the existing guidelines in breaking bad news such as SPIKES largely reflect the perspectives of many patient groups, as assessed by quantitative and qualitative measures. We highlight the most important components of SPIKES to patients and identify five additional suggestions to aid clinicians in breaking bad news.