Oral and Topical Treatment of Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy: Practice Guideline Update Summary: Report of the AAN Guideline Subcommittee.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2011 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) with a focus on topical and oral medications and medical class effects. METHODS: The authors systematically searched the literature from January 2008 to April 2020 using a structured review process to classify the evidence and develop practice recommendations using the AAN 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. RESULTS: Gabapentinoids (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.67), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (SMD 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.60), sodium channel blockers (SMD 0.56; 95% CI, 0.25-0.87), and SNRI/opioid dual mechanism agents (SMD 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) all have comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size (SMD 0.5). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (SMD 0.95; 95% CI, 0.15-1.8) have a large effect size, but this result is tempered by a low confidence in the estimate. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY: Clinicians should assess patients with diabetes for PDN (Level B) and those with PDN for concurrent mood and sleep disorders (Level B). In patients with PDN, clinicians should offer TCAs, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, and/or sodium channel blockers to reduce pain (Level B) and consider factors other than efficacy (Level B). Clinicians should offer patients a trial of medication from a different effective class when they do not achieve meaningful improvement or experience significant adverse effects with the initial therapeutic class (Level B) and not use opioids for the treatment of PDN (Level B).

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.

Dopaminergic Therapy for Motor Symptoms in Early Parkinson Disease Practice Guideline Summary: A Report of the AAN Guideline Subcommittee.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To review the current evidence on the options available for initiating dopaminergic treatment of motor symptoms in early-stage Parkinson disease and provide recommendations to clinicians. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine-compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. RESULTS: Initial treatment with levodopa provides superior motor benefit compared to treatment with dopamine agonists, whereas levodopa is more likely than dopamine agonists to cause dyskinesia. The comparison of different formulations of dopamine agonists yielded little evidence that any one formulation or method of administration is superior. Long-acting forms of levodopa and levodopa with entacapone do not appear to differ in efficacy from immediate-release levodopa for motor symptoms in early disease. There is a higher risk of impulse control disorders associated with the use of dopamine agonists than levodopa. Recommendations on initial therapy for motor symptoms are provided to assist the clinician and patient in choosing between treatment options and to guide counseling, prescribing, and monitoring of efficacy and safety.