Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Artificial Intelligence-Supported Development of Health Guideline Questions.

BACKGROUND: Guideline questions are typically proposed by experts. OBJECTIVE: To assess how large language models (LLMs) can support the development of guideline questions, providing insights on approaches and lessons learned. DESIGN: Two approaches for guideline question generation were assessed: 1) identification of questions conveyed by online search queries and 2) direct generation of guideline questions by LLMs. For the former, the researchers retrieved popular queries on allergic rhinitis using Google Trends (GT) and identified those conveying questions using both manual and LLM-based methods. They then manually structured as guideline questions the queries that conveyed relevant questions. For the second approach, they tasked an LLM with proposing guideline questions, assuming the role of either a patient or a clinician. SETTING: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2024 guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of relevant questions generated. RESULTS: The authors retrieved 3975 unique queries using GT. From these, they identified 37 questions, of which 22 had not been previously posed by guideline panel members and 2 were eventually prioritized by the panel. Direct interactions with LLMs resulted in the generation of 22 unique relevant questions (11 not previously suggested by panel members), and 4 were eventually prioritized by the panel. In total, 6 of 39 final questions prioritized for the 2024 ARIA guidelines were not initially thought of by the panel. The researchers provide a set of practical insights on the implementation of their approaches based on the lessons learned. LIMITATION: Single case study (ARIA guidelines). CONCLUSION: Approaches using LLMs can support the development of guideline questions, complementing traditional methods and potentially augmenting questions prioritized by guideline panels. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-Mediated Diseases.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVES: We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. METHODS: The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Patients' values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis-An artificial intelligence supported systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts patients' physical and emotional well-being. Assessing patients' values and preferences (V&P) related to AR is an essential part of patient-centered care and of the guideline development process. We aimed to systematically summarize the information about patients' V&P on AR and its symptoms and impact on daily life. METHODS: We conducted systematic review in a MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. We included studies which quantitatively assessed patients' V&P for specific outcomes in AR by assessing utilities, applying discrete choice approaches, or rating and ranking outcomes. We grouped outcomes as AR symptoms, functional status, and care-related patient experience. Study selection and data extraction were supported by the Laser AI tool. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (41 records) were included: nine utility studies, seven direct-choice studies and 21 studies of rating or ranking outcomes. Utilities were lower with increased AR severity and with the concomitant presence of asthma, but not with whether AR was seasonal or perennial (CoE = low-high). Patients rated AR symptom-related outcomes as more important than those related to care-related patient experience and functional status (CoE = very low-moderate). Nasal symptoms (mainly nasal congestion) followed by breathing disorders, general and ocular symptoms were rated as the symptoms with the highest impact. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of V&P of patients with AR. Patients generally considered nasal symptoms as the most important. Future studies with standardized methods are needed to provide more information on V&P in AR.

WHO Model list of essential medicines: visions for the future.

The first version of the World Health Organization Model list of essential medicines contained 186 medicines in 1977 and has evolved to include 502 medicines in 2023. Over time, different articles criticized the methods and process for decisions; however, the list holds global relevance as a model list to over 150 national lists. Given the global use of the model list, reflecting on its future role is imperative to understand how the list should evolve and respond to the needs of Member States. In 2023, the model list Expert Committee recommended the World Health Organization (WHO) to initiate a process to revise the procedures for updating the model list and the criteria guiding decisions. Here, we offer an agenda outlining priority areas and a vision for an authoritative model list. The main areas include improving transparency and trustworthiness of the recommendations; strengthening connection to national lists; and continuing the debate on the principles that should guide the model list, in particular the role of cost and price of essential medicines. These reflections are intended to support efforts ensuring the continued impact of this policy tool.

La première version de la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels de l'OMS, publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé, répertoriait 186 médicaments en 1977 et s'est enrichie jusqu'à en inclure 502 en 2023. Au fil du temps, différents articles ont critiqué ses méthodes et processus décisionnels; toutefois, elle reste importante au niveau mondial, servant de référence à plus de 150 listes nationales. Compte tenu de l'usage international qui en est fait, il est impératif de réfléchir à sa fonction future afin de comprendre comment elle peut évoluer et répondre aux besoins des États Membres. En 2023, le Comité d'experts chargé de la liste modèle a recommandé à l'OMS de se lancer dans la révision des procédures de mise à jour de cette liste, ainsi que des critères appliqués aux décisions. Dans le présent document, nous proposons un programme qui définit les priorités et les perspectives d'avenir pour que la liste fasse autorité. Parmi les principaux domaines abordés figurent l'amélioration de la transparence et de la fiabilité des recommandations, le renforcement des liens avec les listes nationales et la poursuite du débat sur les principes qui devraient orienter la liste modèle, en particulier le rôle joué par les coûts et les prix des médicaments essentiels. Ces réflexions ont pour but de soutenir les efforts permettant à cet instrument politique de conserver son impact.

La primera versión de la Lista Modelo OMS de Medicamentos Esenciales contenía 186 medicamentos en 1977 y ha evolucionado hasta incluir 502 medicamentos en 2023. Con el tiempo, diferentes artículos criticaron los métodos y el proceso de decisión; sin embargo, la lista conserva su relevancia mundial como lista modelo para más de 150 listas nacionales. Dado el uso global de la lista modelo, es imperativo reflexionar sobre su función futura para comprender cómo debe evolucionar la lista y responder a las necesidades de los Estados Miembros. En 2023, el Comité de Expertos de la lista modelo recomendó a la OMS que iniciara un proceso para revisar los procedimientos de actualización de la lista modelo y los criterios que guían las decisiones. En este documento, se ofrece un programa en el que se describen las áreas prioritarias y la visión de una lista modelo oficial. Entre las principales áreas se incluyen la mejora de la transparencia y la fiabilidad de las recomendaciones, el refuerzo de la conexión con las listas nacionales y la continuación del debate sobre los principios que deben guiar la lista modelo, en particular sobre la función del coste y el precio de los medicamentos esenciales. El objetivo de estas reflexiones es apoyar los esfuerzos que aseguren el impacto continuado de esta herramienta política.

Strengthening guideline contextualization in the WHO European Region.

The World Health Organization (WHO) plays an important role in developing evidence-based and ethically sound guidelines to assist health workers, programme managers and policy-makers, particularly in countries with limited capacities to create their own. While the development of these guidelines follows rigorous methods, contextualizing recommendations is often necessary to ensure their applicability, feasibility and acceptability at the country level. The adaptation and adoption of global guidelines should happen in a transparent, systematic and participatory manner to maintain credibility while ensuring the ownership necessary for implementation. Here, we present an example from Estonia that showcases the process, requirements and outcomes of implementing WHO guidelines through effective contextualization. The work in Estonia showed that contextualization can shorten guideline development time and reduce costs. To support countries in contextualizing guidelines, including those developed by WHO, to local contexts while maintaining trustworthiness and relevance, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has developed a handbook based on the GRADE-Adolopment approach to guide this process. Furthermore, a rapid assessment of 21 of the 53 Member States in the WHO European Region revealed that many countries need guidance and support to build capacity for contextualizing guidelines. To address the capacity gaps, we suggest a way forward that encompasses four areas of further work: standardizing methods; institutionalizing guideline programmes and initiatives; promoting continuous and shared learning; and providing support and identifying resources. Strengthening countries' capacities to contextualize global guidelines is crucial and will become especially relevant during future health threats, such as pandemics, climate change and conflict situations.

L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS) joue un rôle crucial dans l'élaboration de lignes directrices éthiques et fondées sur des données factuelles qui viennent soutenir le personnel de santé, les gestionnaires de programmes et les responsables politiques, en particulier dans les pays qui ne disposent pas de capacités suffisantes pour développer les leurs. Bien que la mise au point de ces lignes directrices suive des méthodes rigoureuses, il est souvent indispensable de contextualiser les recommandations pour les rendre applicables, faisables et acceptables à l'échelle nationale. L'adaptation et l'adoption de lignes directrices mondiales doivent s'effectuer en toute transparence, de manière systématique et participative, en vue de préserver leur crédibilité tout en assurant le niveau d'implication nécessaire à leur déploiement. Ce document s'appuie sur un exemple provenant d'Estonie pour illustrer le processus, les exigences et les résultats liés à la mise en pratique de lignes directrices émises par l'OMS grâce à une contextualisation efficace. Le travail réalisé en Estonie a montré que cette contextualisation pouvait réduire le temps consacré au développement de la ligne directrice et faire baisser les coûts. Afin d'aider les pays à adapter les lignes directrices, notamment celles élaborées par l'OMS, à chaque contexte local tout en conservant leur fiabilité et leur pertinence, le Bureau régional de l'OMS pour l'Europe a rédigé un manuel qui s'inspire de l'approche GRADE-Adolopment pour guider ce processus. En outre, une évaluation rapide de 21 des 53 États Membres de la Région européenne de l'OMS a révélé que nombre d'entre eux avaient besoin d'assistance et de conseils pour développer leurs capacités de contextualisation des lignes directrices. Nous suggérons, pour combler les lacunes, une stratégie constituée de quatre axes pour la poursuite des travaux: la standardisation des méthodes, l'institutionnalisation des initiatives et programmes relatifs aux lignes directrices, la promotion d'un apprentissage commun et continu, ainsi que la mise à disposition d'un soutien et l'identification des ressources. Renforcer les capacités des pays à contextualiser les lignes directrices mondiales est essentiel et revêtira une importance particulière face à de futures menaces sanitaires telles que les pandémies, le changement climatique et les situations de conflit.

La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) desempeña una función importante en la elaboración de directrices basadas en evidencias y sólidas desde el punto de vista ético para ayudar al personal sanitario, los gestores de programas y los responsables de formular políticas, sobre todo en países que tienen una capacidad limitada para crear sus propias directrices. Aunque la elaboración de estas directrices sigue métodos rigurosos, suele ser necesario contextualizar las recomendaciones para asegurar su aplicabilidad, viabilidad y aceptabilidad a nivel nacional. La adaptación y la adopción de directrices mundiales deben realizarse de forma transparente, sistemática y participativa para mantener la credibilidad y asegurar al mismo tiempo la apropiación necesaria para su implementación. En este documento, se presenta un ejemplo de Estonia que muestra el proceso, los requisitos y los resultados de la aplicación de las directrices de la OMS mediante una contextualización efectiva. El trabajo realizado en Estonia demostró que la contextualización puede acortar el tiempo de elaboración de las directrices y reducir los costes. Para ayudar a los países a adaptar las directrices, incluidas las elaboradas por la OMS, a los contextos locales, manteniendo al mismo tiempo su fiabilidad y pertinencia, la Oficina Regional para Europa de la OMS ha elaborado un manual basado en el enfoque GRADE-Adolopment para orientar este proceso. Además, una evaluación rápida de 21 de los 53 Estados Miembros de la Región de Europa de la OMS reveló que muchos países necesitan orientación y apoyo para crear capacidad a fin de contextualizar las directrices. Para abordar las carencias de capacidad, se sugiere una vía de avance que abarca cuatro áreas de trabajo ulterior: estandarizar métodos, institucionalizar programas e iniciativas de directrices, promover el aprendizaje continuo y compartido, y proporcionar apoyo e identificar recursos. El refuerzo de las capacidades de los países para contextualizar las directrices mundiales es crucial y será de especial relevancia durante futuras amenazas para la salud, como las pandemias, el cambio climático y las situaciones de conflicto.

Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies on allergen immunotherapy.

Nonrandomized studies (NRS) on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) particularly lend themselves to evaluate outcomes that are insufficiently addressed in randomized controlled studies (RCTs). However, NRS are prone to several sources of bias, which limit their validity. We aimed at comparing AIT effects between RCTs and NRS and evaluate the reasons for discrepancies in study results. In this analysis, we compared NRS on AIT (including subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy, SCIT and SLIT, respectively) with SLIT and SCIT RCTs from published meta-analyses, assessing the Risk of Bias (RoB) for each study and the certainty of evidence from NRS and RCTs using the GRADE approach. We found: (1) very serious RoB in the 7 NRS included in the meta-analysis showing a large difference between AIT and controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] for symptom score [SS], -1.77; 95% CI, -2.30, -1.24; p < .001; I2 = 95%) with very low certainty evidence; (2) serious RoB in the 13 SCIT-RCTs reporting a moderate-to-high difference between SCIT and controls (SMD for SS, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.12, -0.49; p < .001; I2 = 88%) with moderate certainty evidence; (3) low RoB in the 13 SLIT-RCTs reporting a small benefit (SMD for SS, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.37, -0.19; p < .001; I2 = 54.2%) with high certainty evidence. Similar results were reported for medication score. Our evidence is sufficient to conclude that the magnitude of effect estimates of NRS and RCTs directly correlate with the degree of RoB and inversely with the overall evidence certainty. NRS, which are more affected than RCTs by bias resulting in low certainty evidence, showed the largest effect size. Sound NRS are needed to complement RCTs.

GRADE Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (2009-2021).

PURPOSE: We evaluate the reporting of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rating the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews published in the urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a predefined protocol, we identified all systematic reviews published in 5 major urological journals from 1998 to 2021 that reported the use of GRADE. Two authors performed study selection and data abstraction independently to assess reporting in accordance with established criteria for applying GRADE. RESULTS: We included 68 of 522 (13.0%) systematic reviews that reported the use of GRADE; the first was published in 2009. Approximately half were published between 2009-2018 (n=36) and the other half between 2019-2021 (n=32). Oncology (24; 35.3%) was the most common clinical topic, and the authors were mostly based in Europe (34; 50%). In their abstract, less than half of all systematic reviews (32; 47.1%) provided any certainty of evidence rating. Only 41 (60.3%) included a tabular result summary in the format of a summary of findings table (24; 35.3%) or evidence profile (17; 25.0%). Few (35.3%) addressed the GRADE certainty of evidence rating in the discussion section. Reporting did not improve over time when comparing the 2 time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas GRADE is increasingly being applied for rating the certainty of evidence, systematic reviews published in the urological literature frequently have not followed established criteria for applying or using GRADE. There is a need for better training of authors and editors, as well as for a GRADE reporting checklist for systematic review authors.

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks: The MASK-air® longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. METHODS: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach - ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

[Routine Practice Data for Health Care Analyses: Part 3 of the Manual]. / Versorgungsnahe Daten für Versorgungsanalysen ­ Teil 3 des Manuals.

Analyses of health and health care (hereafter referred to as "health care analyses") usually aim to make transparent the structures, processes, results and interrelationships of health care and to record the degree to which health care systems and their actors have achieved their goals. Health care-related data are an indispensable source of data for many health care analyses. A prerequisite for the examination of a degree of goal achievement is first of all an agreement on those goals that are to be achieved by the system and its substructures, as well as the identification of the determinants of the achievement of the objectives. Primarily it must be examined how safely, effectively and patient-centred systems, facilities and service providers are operating. It also addresses issues of need, accessibility, utilisation, timeliness, appropriateness, patient safety, coordination, continuity, and health economic efficiency and equity of health care. The results of health care include system services (outputs), on the one hand, and results (outcomes), on the other, whereby the results (patient-reported outcomes) and experiences (patient-reported experiences) reported are of particular importance. Health care analyses answer basic questions of health care research: who does what, when, how, why and with which resources and effects in routine health care. Health care analyses thus provide the necessary findings and key figures to further develop health care in order to improve the quality of health care. The applications range from capacity analyses to following innovations up to the concept of regional and supra-regional monitoring of the quality of care given to the population. Given the progress of digitalisation in Health Care, direct data from the care processes will be increasingly available for health care research. This can support care givers significantly if the findings of the studies are applied precisely and correctly within an adequate methodological frame. This can lead to measurable improved health care quality for patients. Data from the process of health care provision have a high potential. Their use needs the same scientific scrutiny as in all other scientific studies.

Prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There may be many predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients, but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients and searched Medline and EMBASE from inception through May 2018. We considered studies that identified potential prognostic factors for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized adult medical patients. Reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Of 69 410 citations, we included 17 studies in our analysis: 14 that reported on VTE, and 3 that reported on bleeding. For VTE, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age; elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and fibrinogen levels; tachycardia; thrombocytosis; leukocytosis; fever; leg edema; lower Barthel Index (BI) score; immobility; paresis; previous history of VTE; thrombophilia; malignancy; critical illness; and infections. For bleeding, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, sex, anemia, obesity, low hemoglobin, gastroduodenal ulcers, rehospitalization, critical illness, thrombocytopenia, blood dyscrasias, hepatic disease, renal failure, antithrombotic medication, and presence of a central venous catheter. Elevated CRP, a lower BI, a history of malignancy, and elevated heart rate are not included in most VTE risk assessment models. This study informs risk prediction in the management of hospitalized medical patients for VTE and bleeding; it also informs guidelines for VTE prevention and future research.

Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.

BACKGROUND: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. RESULTS: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSION: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.

Using GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks to support the process of health policy-making: an example application regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.

BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks are well-known tools that enable guideline panels to structure the process of developing recommendations and making decisions in healthcare and public health. To date, they have not regularly been used for health policy-making. This article aims to illustrate the application of the GRADE EtD frameworks in the process of nutrition-related policy-making for a European country. METHODS: Based on methodological guidance by the GRADE Working Group and the findings of our recently published scoping review, we illustrate the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, by applying the EtD frameworks to a fictitious example. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation based on energy density was chosen as an example application. RESULTS: A fictitious guideline panel was convened by a national nutrition association to develop a population-level recommendation on SSB taxation aiming to reduce the burden of overweight and obesity. Exemplary evidence was summarized for each EtD criterion and conclusions were drawn based on all judgements made in relation to each criterion. As a result of the high priority to reduce the burden of obesity and because of the moderate desirable effects on health outcomes, but considering scarce or varying research evidence for other EtD criteria, the panel made a conditional recommendation for SSB taxation. Decision-makers may opt for conducting a pilot study prior to implementing the policy on a national level. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE EtD frameworks can be used by guideline panels to make the process of developing recommendations in the field of health policy more systematic, transparent and comprehensible.

Addressing uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments by HTA organizations.

This study outlines the ways in which different health technology assessment (HTA) organizations deal with uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs), using the GRADE framework as a common reference. Guidelines regarding REA and uncertainty assessment methods and three most recent HTA reports (as of April 2020) of seven HTA organizations in Germany, England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Europe (EUnetHTA), the USA, and Canada were included. First, it was analyzed how each organization addressed uncertainty on the following levels of evidence: (i) individual studies, (ii) body of evidence for one outcome, (iii) body of evidence across all outcomes, and (iv) added net benefit. Second, the extent to which HTA organizations considered the eight domains of certainty of evidence defined by GRADE was assessed. For individual studies, checklists were the most common approach to express uncertainty (4/7 organizations). Uncertainty in the body of evidence for all outcomes and in added benefit was combined in a single conclusion by five organizations. All organizations reported on at least 4/5 downgrading domains of GRADE, while the three upgrading domains were reported less. The operationalization of the assessment of multiple domains was unclear due to vague or absent guidelines. HTA organizations consider most domains of the GRADE framework, but approaches to assess uncertainty within REAs on different levels of evidence differ substantially between organizations. More alignment and guidance on the best methods to deal with uncertainty within HTA could lead to more clarity for stakeholders and to more aligned reimbursement recommendations.

Facilitators, barriers and strategies for health-system guidance implementation: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol.

BACKGROUND: As systematically developed statements regarding possible courses of action, health system guidance (HSG) can assist with making decisions about addressing problems or achieving goals in health systems. However, there are conceptual and methodological challenges in HSG implementation due to the complexity of health-system policy-making, the diversity of available evidence and vast differences in contexts. To address these gaps, we aim to develop a theoretical framework for supporting HSG implementation as part of a broader effort to promote evidence-informed policy-making in health systems. METHODS: To develop a theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation, we will apply a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to synthesize the findings from a range of relevant literature. We will search 11 electronic databases and seven organizational websites to identify relevant published and grey literature. We will check the references of included studies and contact experts to identify additional eligible papers. Finally, we will conduct purposively sampling of the literature to fill any identified conceptual gaps. We will use relevance and five quality criteria to assess included papers. A standardized form will be developed for extracting information. We will use an interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the findings, including a constant comparative method throughout the analysis. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature screening and relevance assessment, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The principal investigator will conduct data extraction and synthesis, and a second reviewer will check the sample of extracted data for consistency and accuracy. DISCUSSION: A new theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation will be developed using a CIS approach. The HSG implementation framework could be widely used for supporting the implementation of HSG covering varied topics and in different contexts (including low-, middle- and high-income countries). In later work, we will develop a tool for supporting HSG implementation based on the theoretical framework. Registration PROSPERO CRD42020214072. Date of Registration: 14 December 2020.

In-Hospital Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-Drivers and Interventions for Antibiotic Use and Resistance: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis of Data from Canada and Other OECD Countries.

Hospitals continue to face challenges in reducing incorrect antibiotic use due to social and cultural factors at the level of the health system, the care facility, the provider, and the patient. The objective of this paper is to highlight the social and cultural drivers of antimicrobial use and resistance and targeted interventions for secondary and tertiary care settings in Canada and other OECD countries. This paper is an extension of the synthesis conducted for the Public Health Agency of Canada's 2019 Spotlight Report: Preserving Antibiotics Now and Into the Future. We conducted a systematic review with a few modifications to meet rapid timelines. We conducted a search in Ovid MEDLINE and McMaster University's evidence databases for systematic reviews and then for individual Canadian studies. To cast a wider net, we searched OECD organization websites and screened reference lists from systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence narratively and categorized the evidence into macro-, meso-, and microlevel. A total of 70 studies were (a) from OCED countries and summarized evidence of potential sociocultural antimicrobial resistance and use barriers or facilitators and/or interventions addressing these challenges; (b) systematic reviews with 50% of included studies that are situated in secondary and tertiary settings; and (c) published in Canada's two official languages, English and French. We found that hospital structures and policies may influence antibiotic utilization and variations in antimicrobial management. Microlevel factors may sway inappropriate prescribing among clinicians. The amount and type of antibiotics used may affect resistance rates. Interventions were mainly comprised of antibiotic stewardship and training that modify clinician behavior and that educate patients and carers. This evidence synthesis illustrates the various drivers of, and interventions for, antimicrobial use and resistance at the macro-, meso-, and microlevel in secondary and tertiary settings. We demonstrate that upstream drivers may lead to downstream events that influence antimicrobial resistance.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Antimicrobial Resistance: Parallel and Interacting Health Emergencies.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are parallel and interacting health emergencies that provide the opportunity for mutual learning. As their measures and consequences are comparable, the COVID-19 pandemic helps to illustrate the potential long-term impact of AMR, which is less acute but not less crucial. They may also impact each other as there is a push to use existing antimicrobials to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients in the absence of specific treatments. Attempts to manage the spread of COVID-19 may also lead to a slowdown in AMR. Understanding how COVID-19 affects AMR trends and what we can expect if these trends remain the same or worsen will help us to plan the next steps for tackling AMR. Researchers should start collecting data to measure the impact of current COVID-19 policies and programs on AMR.