Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline. METHODS: The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020. RECOMMENDATIONS: The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: Synopsis of the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization developed a clinical practice guideline in 2020 for the management of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) was tasked with developing the guideline for diabetes management in CKD. It defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined systematic review topics, and graded evidence that had been summarized by an evidence review team. The English-language literature searches, which were initially done through October 2018, were updated in February 2020. The WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of the recommendations. Expert judgment was used to develop consensus practice points supplementary to the evidence-based graded recommendations. The guideline document underwent open public review. Comments from various stakeholders, subject matter experts, and industry and national organizations were considered before the document was finalized. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline includes 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD. This synopsis focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and educational and integrated care approaches.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases is an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline. The aim is to assist clinicians caring for individuals with glomerulonephritis (GN), both adults and children. The scope includes various glomerular diseases, including IgA nephropathy and IgA vasculitis, membranous nephropathy, nephrotic syndrome, minimal change disease (MCD), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), infection-related GN, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) vasculitis, lupus nephritis, and anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody GN. In addition, this guideline will be the first to address the subtype of complement-mediated diseases. Each chapter follows the same format providing guidance related to diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and special situations. The goal of the guideline is to generate a useful resource for clinicians and patients by providing actionable recommendations based on evidence syntheses, with useful infographics incorporating views from experts in the field. Another aim is to propose research recommendations for areas where there are gaps in knowledge. The guideline targets a broad global audience of clinicians treating GN while being mindful of implications for policy and cost. Development of this guideline update followed an explicit process whereby treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies, and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, with areas of future research also presented.

Executive summary of the 2020 KDIGO Diabetes Management in CKD Guideline: evidence-based advances in monitoring and treatment.

THE KIDNEY DISEASE: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease represents the first KDIGO guideline on this subject. The guideline comes at a time when advances in diabetes technology and therapeutics offer new options to manage the large population of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at high risk of poor health outcomes. An enlarging base of high-quality evidence from randomized clinical trials is available to evaluate important new treatments offering organ protection, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The goal of the new guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize the clinical care of people with diabetes and CKD by integrating new options with existing management strategies. In addition, the guideline contains practice points to facilitate implementation when insufficient data are available to make well-justified recommendations or when additional guidance may be useful for clinical application. The guideline covers comprehensive care of patients with diabetes and CKD, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and self-management and health systems approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD.

AGA Technical Review on the Evaluation of Functional Diarrhea and Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults (IBS-D).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The evaluation of patients with chronic watery diarrhea represents a diagnostic challenge for clinicians because organic causes, including inflammatory bowel disease, microscopic colitis, and chronic infection, must be differentiated from functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the usefulness of diagnostic tests in such patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, from 1978 until April 2017. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies reporting on the use of fecal and blood tests for the evaluation of adult patients with functional diarrhea, including irritable bowel syndrome. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II, and the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the proportion of patients with true and false positive and negative results. We evaluated the following tests: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, fecal lactoferrin, fecal calprotectin, serologic tests for celiac disease, tests for bile acid diarrhea, the commercially available version of anti-cytolethal distending toxin B and anti-vinculin antibodies, and tests for Giardia infection. We did not evaluate breath tests for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, as they are not part of a standard diarrhea workup. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies proved eligible to evaluate 1 or more of these tests. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were similar at discriminating organic from functional disease, with sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of 0.54-0.78 and 0.46-0.95 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate and 0.73 and 0.78 for C-reactive protein. Among fecal tests, fecal calprotectin in a range of 50-60 µg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.86; pooled specificity 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92) and fecal lactoferrin in a range of 4.0-7.25 µg/g (pooled sensitivity 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; pooled specificity 0.93; 95%CI 0.63-0.99) presented the lowest proportion of false-negative results (low certainty in the evidence). Among tests for celiac disease, IgA tissue transglutaminase presented the best diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity range, 0.79-0.99; specificity range, 0.90-0.99) with moderate certainty in the evidence. Among tests for bile acid diarrhea, the 75selenium homotaurocholic acid test performed better than serum fibroblast growth factor 19 and 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, but is not available in the United States. There was insufficient evidence to recommend serologic tests for irritable bowel syndrome at this time. There are several good diagnostic tests for Giardia infection. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to low certainty in the evidence indicates that available fecal and blood tests may play a role in the diagnostic workup of adult patients with functional diarrhea. At the moment, no tests are available to reliably rule in irritable bowel syndrome.

Pregnancy as a risk factor for severe influenza infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: WHO identifies pregnant women to be at increased risk for severe outcomes from influenza virus infections and recommends that they be prioritized for influenza vaccination. The evidence supporting this, however, is inconsistent. Ecologic studies in particular suggest more severe outcomes from influenza infection during pregnancy than studies based on individual patient data. Individual studies however may be underpowered and, as reported in a previous systematic review, confounding factors could not be adjusted for. We therefore conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the risk for severe outcomes of influenza infection in pregnant women while adjusting for other prognostic factors. METHODS: We contacted authors of studies included in a recently published systematic review. We pooled the individual participant data of women of reproductive age and laboratory confirmation of influenza virus infection. We used a generalized linear mixed model and reported odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 33 datasets with data on 186,656 individuals were available, including 36,498 eligible women of reproductive age and known pregnancy status. In the multivariable model, pregnancy was associated with a 7 times higher risk of hospital admission (OR 6.80, 95%CI 6.02-7.68), among patients receiving medical care as in- or outpatients, pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of admission to intensive care units (ICU; OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.48-0.69), and was not significantly associated with death (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.75-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a higher risk of influenza associated hospitalization among pregnant women as compared to non-pregnant women. We did not find a higher mortality rate or higher likelihood of ICU admission among pregnant women who sought medical care. However, this study did not address whether a true community based cohort of pregnant women is at higher risk of influenza associated complications.

[The BMJ Rapid Recommendations: towards a new model for the production of clinical practice guidelines]. / « BMJ Rapid Recommendations ¼ : vers un nouveau modèle de recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

Guidelines play a central role in clinical practice, but their development often does not meet trustworthiness standards, which makes them vulnerable to conflict of interest. Additional problems -include their insufficient updating, and current formats that do not support shared decision-making. To address these issues, we have created the Rapid Recommendations, in collaboration with the British -Medical Journal. In this innovative approach, we a) identify new practice-changing evidence ; b) incorporate them in updated -systematics reviews in about 45 days ; c) gather an international and unconflicted panel including patients and d) publish trust-worthy recommendation in about 90 days, along with new multilayered evidence summaries and tools that facilitate shared decision-making.

Les guidelines ont une place centrale dans notre pratique clinique, mais leur développement manque souvent de rigueur et de transparence, rendant leurs recommandations vulnérables aux conflits d'intérêts. S'y ajoutent les problèmes de mise à jour insuffisante, et des formats qui ne facilitent pas leur adaptation locale ou la décision médicale partagée. En -réponse à ces problèmes, nous avons conçu les RapidRecs en collaboration avec le British Medical Journal. Cette approche innovante consiste à : a) identifier des -nouvelles études pouvant changer la pratique ; b) les incorporer dans des revues systématiques en -environ 45 jours ; c) rassembler un panel international indépendant, sans conflit d'intérêts et incluant des patients et d) émettre des recommandations -selon GRADE en environ 90 jours, avec des outils didactiques -facilitant la décision -médicale partagée.

The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between sugar and health is affected by energy balance, macronutrient substitutions, and diet and lifestyle patterns. Several authoritative organizations have issued public health guidelines addressing dietary sugars. PURPOSE: To systematically review guidelines on sugar intake and assess consistency of recommendations, methodological quality of guidelines, and the quality of evidence supporting each recommendation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (1995 to September 2016); guideline registries; and gray literature (bibliographies, Google, and experts). STUDY SELECTION: Guidelines addressing sugar intake that reported their methods of development and were published in English between 1995 and 2016. DATA EXTRACTION: Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II), instrument. To assess evidence quality, articles supporting recommendations were independently reviewed and their quality was determined by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 9 guidelines that offered 12 recommendations. Each of the reviewed guidelines indicated a suggested decrease in the consumption of foods containing nonintrinsic sugars. The guidelines scored poorly on AGREE II criteria, specifically in rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Seven recommendations provided nonquantitative guidance; 5 recommended less than 25% to less than 5% of total calories from nonintrinsic sugars. The recommendations were based on various health concerns, including nutrient displacement, dental caries, and weight gain. Quality of evidence supporting recommendations was low to very low. LIMITATION: The authors conducted the study independent of the funding source, which is primarily supported by the food and agriculture industry. CONCLUSION: Guidelines on dietary sugar do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence. Public health officials (when promulgating these recommendations) and their public audience (when considering dietary behavior) should be aware of these limitations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42015029182).

Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed in children. They alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract, commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent AAD via restoration of the gut microflora. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) used for the prevention of AAD in children. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to November 2014) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD review group, CISCOM (Centralized Information Service for Complementary Medicine), NHS Evidence, the International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements as well as trial registries. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, parallel, controlled trials in children (0 to 18 years) receiving antibiotics, that compare probiotics to placebo, active alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment and measure the incidence of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction as well as methodological quality assessment using the risk of bias instrument was conducted independently and in duplicate by two authors. Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as mean difference (MD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, sensitivity analyses included available case versus extreme-plausible analyses and random- versus fixed-effect models. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, as well as risk of bias. We also conducted post hoc subgroup analyses by patient diagnosis, single versus multi-strain, industry sponsorship, and inpatient status. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (3938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Bacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Clostridium butyricum, Lactobacilli spp., Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc cremoris, Saccharomyces spp., orStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Eleven studies used a single strain probiotic, four combined two probiotic strains, three combined three probiotic strains, one combined four probiotic strains, two combined seven probiotic strains, one included ten probiotic strains, and one study included two probiotic arms that used three and two strains respectively. The risk of bias was determined to be high or unclear in 13 studies and low in 10 studies. Available case (patients who did not complete the studies were not included in the analysis) results from 22/23 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show a precise benefit from probiotics compared to active, placebo or no treatment control. The incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 8% (163/1992) compared to 19% (364/1906) in the control group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; I(2) = 55%, 3898 participants). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was moderate. This benefit remained statistically significant in an extreme plausible (60% of children loss to follow-up in probiotic group and 20% loss to follow-up in the control group had diarrhea) sensitivity analysis, where the incidence of AAD in the probiotic group was 14% (330/2294) compared to 19% (426/2235) in the control group (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; I(2) = 63%, 4529 participants). None of the 16 trials (n = 2455) that reported on adverse events documented any serious adverse events attributable to probiotics. Meta-analysis excluded all but an extremely small non-significant difference in adverse events between treatment and control (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). The majority of adverse events were in placebo, standard care or no treatment group. Adverse events reported in the studies include rash, nausea, gas, flatulence, abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, vomiting, increased phlegm, chest pain, constipation, taste disturbance, and low appetite. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests a protective effect of probiotics in preventing AAD. Our pooled estimate suggests a precise (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61) probiotic effect with a NNT of 10. Among the various probiotics evaluated, Lactobacillus rhamnosus or Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day may be appropriate given the modest NNT and the likelihood that adverse events are very rare. It is premature to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of other probiotic agents for pediatric AAD. Although no serious adverse events were observed among otherwise healthy children, serious adverse events have been observed in severely debilitated or immuno-compromised children with underlying risk factors including central venous catheter use and disorders associated with bacterial/fungal translocation. Until further research has been conducted, probiotic use should be avoided in pediatric populations at risk for adverse events. Future trials would benefit from a standard and valid outcomes to measure AAD.

Mobile phone text messaging interventions for HIV and other chronic diseases: an overview of systematic reviews and framework for evidence transfer.

BACKGROUND: Strong international commitment and the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy have led to higher longevity for people living with human immune deficiency virus (HIV). Text messaging interventions have been shown to improve health outcomes in people living with HIV. The objectives of this overview were to: map the state of the evidence of text messaging interventions, identify knowledge gaps, and develop a framework for the transfer of evidence to other chronic diseases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews on text messaging interventions to improve health or health related outcomes. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE (Exerpta Medica Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, Web of Science (WoS) and the Cochrane Library on the 17th April 2014. Screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were done in duplicate. Our findings were used to develop a conceptual framework for transfer. RESULTS: Our search identified 135 potential systematic reviews of which nine were included, reporting on 37 source studies, conducted in 19 different countries. Seven of nine (77.7%) of these reviews were high quality. There was some evidence for text messaging as a tool to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Text messages also improved attendance at appointments and behaviour change outcomes. The findings were inconclusive for self-management of illness, treatment of tuberculosis and communicating results of medical investigations. The geographical distribution of text messaging research was limited to specific regions of the world. Prominent knowledge gaps included the absence of data on long term outcomes, patient satisfaction, and economic evaluations. The included reviews also identified methodological limitations in many of the primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: Global evidence supports the use of text messaging as a tool to improve adherence to medication and attendance at scheduled appointments. Given the similarities between HIV and other chronic diseases (long-term medications, life-long care, strong link to behaviour and the need for home-based support) evidence from HIV may be transferred to these diseases using our proposed framework by integration of HIV and chronic disease services or direct transfer.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data. RESULTS: We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.

PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.