[Are guidelines still supportive in clinical practice?] / Zijn richtlijnen nog ondersteunend in de praktijk?

Clinical practice guidelines are fundamental to support knowledge and decision making of healthcare professionals in many disciplines. They can contribute to reducing undesirable practice variation, educating patients, and monitoring care. However, the burden increases if the number and size of guidelines continues to increase and as more side effects occur due to injudicious use, both in the professional and policy setting. Restricting the scope and finding the right balance between completeness and conciseness are major challenges for guideline developers and stakeholders. Ongoing innovation projects are working on improving accessibility, updating, and applicability in multimorbidity through optimal use of digital technologies. As long as healthcare professionals are in the lead in guideline development and involved in policy making, doctors can continue to rely on guidelines, if used correctly for the right care.

A narrative review of frailty assessment in older patients at the emergency department.

Optimizing emergency care for the aging population is an important future challenge, as the proportion of older patients at the emergency department (ED) rapidly increases. Older patients, particularly those who are frail, have a high risk of adverse outcomes after an ED visit, such as functional decline, institutionalization, and death. The ED can have a key position in identifying frail older patients who benefit most from comprehensive geriatric care [including delirium preventive measures, early evaluation of after-discharge care, and a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)]. However, performing extensive frailty assessment is not suitable at the ED. Therefore, quick and easy-to-use instruments are needed to identify older patients at risk for adverse outcomes. This narrative review outlines the importance and complexity of frailty assessment at the ED. It aligns the available screening instruments, including clinical judgment as frailty assessment, and summarizes arguments for and against frailty assessment at the ED.

Update on cardiovascular prevention in clinical practice: A position paper of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention in clinical practice were first published in 1994 and have been regularly updated, most recently in 2016, by the Sixth European Joint Task Force. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, components from the task force and experts from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology were invited to provide a summary and critical review of the most important new studies and evidence since the latest guidelines were published. The structure of the document follows that of the previous document and has six parts: Introduction (epidemiology and cost effectiveness); Cardiovascular risk; How to intervene at the population level; How to intervene at the individual level; Disease-specific interventions; and Settings: where to intervene? In fact, in keeping with the guidelines, greater emphasis has been put on a population-based approach and on disease-specific interventions, avoiding re-interpretation of information already and previously considered. Finally, the presence of several gaps in the knowledge is highlighted.

The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists' appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. METHODS: Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

Cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis patients still suboptimal: the Implementation of Cardiovascular Risk Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis project.

Objective: To assess the 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk score and to identify treatment and undertreatment of CV risk factors in patients with established RA. Methods: Demographics, CV risk factors and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were assessed by questionnaire. To calculate the 10-year CV risk score according to the Dutch CV risk management guideline, systolic blood pressure was measured and cholesterol levels were determined from fasting blood samples. Patients were categorized into four groups: indication for treatment but not treated; inadequately treated, so not meeting goals (systolic blood pressure ⩽140 mmHg and/or low-density lipoprotein ⩽2.5 mmol/l); adequately treated; or no treatment necessary. Results: A total of 720 consecutive RA patients were included, 375 from Reade and 345 from the Antonius Hospital. The mean age of patients was 59 years (s.d. 12) and 73% were female. Seventeen per cent of the patients had a low 10-year CV risk (<10%), 21% had an intermediate risk (10-19%), 53% a high risk (⩾20%) and 9% had CVD. In total, 69% had an indication for preventive treatment (cholesterol-lowering or antihypertensive drugs). Of those, 42% received inadequate treatment and 40% received no treatment at all. Conclusion: Optimal CV risk management remains a major challenge and better awareness and management are urgently needed to reduce the high risk of CVD in the RA population.

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: a detailed evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an inflammatory disease with documented elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk due to systemic inflammation and a higher prevalence of CV risk factors. CV risk management (CV-RM) could be an effective method to reduce CV mortality and morbidity in AS patients. We assessed CV risk and evaluated guideline adherence according to the Dutch CV-RM guideline. METHODS: This study was conducted with a cohort of consecutive AS patients eligible for treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) -α inhibitor. Data from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment was used to compare the prevalence of CV risk factors in AS patients with the Dutch background population. RESULTS: In total, 254 consecutive AS patients were included. The prevalences of hypertension (41% vs 31%) and smoking (43% vs 27%) were substantially higher in AS patients as compared to the general Dutch background population. Of 138 AS patients older than 40 years the 10-years CV risk could be calculated. Fifty-one of these 138 patients (37%) had an indication for CV risk treatment. CV risk treatment was initiated in 42 of the 51 (82%), however, in only 12 of the 51 (24%) patients treatment targets for either hypertension or hypercholesterolemia were reached. CONCLUSION: The increased rates of hypertension and smoking illustrate the importance of CV-RM in AS patients. Although the majority of all AS patients eligible for CV-RM received CV risk medication, CV-RM remains a challenge for treating physicians, as treatment targets were not achieved in three-quarter of the eligible patients.

[Summary of the multidisciplinary guideline on cardiovascular risk management (revision 2011)]. / Samenvatting van de multidisciplinaire richtlijn 'Cardiovasculair risicomanagement' (herziening 2011).

The decision whether to treat individuals not previously known to have cardiovascular disease is based on a new risk table in which Dutch research data on morbidity have been incorporated. An explanation of the roles of additional risk factors ignored in the cardiovascular risk function, such as a sedentary lifestyle and a high BMI, is provided. A method for estimating the cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis has been developed. New recommendations concerning the measurement of blood pressure at home and in the ambulatory setting have been formulated. The recommendations for the choice of antihypertensive drugs have been revised. The recommendations on handling therapy-resistant hypertension are provided. Recommendations for choosing statins based on a current cost-effectiveness analysis are provided.