Reaction Risk to Direct Penicillin Challenges: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: While direct penicillin challenges might support the expansion of penicillin allergy delabeling efforts, the perceived risk of reactions remains a key barrier. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges in individuals with penicillin allergy labels and to identify factors associated with such reactions. Data Sources: Three electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus) from inception to July 19, 2023, for primary studies assessing patients undergoing direct penicillin challenges. Articles were included regardless of publication year, language, status, or definition of allergy risk. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected original studies reporting the frequency of immunologically mediated reactions following a direct penicillin challenge in patients reporting a penicillin allergy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and independently assessed the quality of each primary study using a risk-of-bias tool for prevalence studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the frequency of reactions to direct penicillin challenges as calculated using random-effects bayesian meta-analysis of proportions. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for reactions and the frequency of severe reactions. Results: A total of 56 primary studies involving 9225 participants were included. Among participants, 438 experienced reactions to direct penicillin challenges without prior testing, corresponding to an overall meta-analytic frequency of 3.5% (95% credible interval [CrI], 2.5%-4.6%). Meta-regression analyses revealed that studies performed in North America had lower rates of reaction to direct challenges (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.20-0.61), while studies performed in children (OR, 3.37; 95% CrI, 1.98-5.98), in outpatients (OR, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.08-4.75), and with a graded (OR, 3.24; 95% CrI, 1.50-7.06) or prolonged (OR, 5.45; 95% CrI, 2.38-13.28) challenge had higher rates of reaction. Only 5 severe reactions (3 anaphylaxis, 1 fever with rash, and 1 acute kidney injury) were reported, none of which were fatal. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that reactions to direct penicillin challenges are infrequent, with rates comparable to indirect challenges after allergy testing. These findings suggest that direct challenges are safe for incorporation into penicillin allergy evaluation efforts across age groups and clinical settings.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XI - Milk supplement/replacement formulas for infants and toddlers with CMA - Systematic review.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most complex and common food allergy in infants. Elimination of cow's milk from the diet and replacement with a specialized formula for infants with cow's milk allergy who cannot be breastfed is an established approach to minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions while avoiding nutritional deficiencies. Given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk-based formula (eHF-CM), aminoacid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF), and soy formula (SF), there is some uncertainty regarding which formula might represent the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. The addition of probiotics to a specialized formula has also been proposed as a potential approach to possibly increase the benefit. We systematically reviewed specialized formulas for infants with CMA to inform the updated World Allergy Organization (WAO) DRACMA guidelines. Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence about the use of specialized formulas for the management of individuals with CMA. Methods: We searched from inception PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations, for randomized and non-randomized trials of any language investigating specialized formulas with or without probiotics. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in January 2024. We synthesized the identified evidence quantitatively or narratively as appropriate and summarized it in the evidence profiles. We conducted this review following the PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 3558 records including 14 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. Very low certainty evidence suggested that in infants with IgE-mediated CMA, eHF-CM, compared with AAF, might have higher probability of outgrowing CMA (risk ratio (RR) 2.32; risk difference (RD) 25 more per 100), while showing potentially lower probability of severe vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD 23 fewer per 100, 95% CI 3 to 26) and developing food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82; RD 34 fewer per 100, 95% CI 7 to 39). We also found, however, that eHF-CM might be inferior to AAF in supporting a physiological growth, with respect to both weight (-5.5% from baseline, 95%CI -9.5% to -1.5%) and length (-0.7 z-score change, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.25) (very low certainty). We found similar effects for eHF-CM, compared with AAF, also in non-IgE CMA. When compared with SF, eHF-CM might favor weight gain for IgE CMA infants (0.23 z-score change, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45), and tolerance acquisition (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.37; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-74%) for non-IgE CMA (both at very low certainty of the evidence (CoE)). The comparison of eHF-CM vs. HRF, and HRF vs. SF, showed no difference in effect (very low certainty). For IgE CMA patients, low certainty evidence suggested that adding probiotics (L. rhamnosus GG, L. casei CRL431 and B. lactis Bb-12) might increase the probability of developing CMA tolerance (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.93; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-91%), and reduce the risk of severe wheezing (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.95; RD -23%, 95%CI -8% to -0.4%). However, in non-IgE CMA infants, the addition of probiotics (L. rhamnosus GG) showed no significant effect, as supported by low to very low CoE. Conclusions: Currently available studies comparing eHF-CM, AAF, HRF, and SF provide very low certainty evidence about their effects in infants with IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated CMA. Our review revealed several limitations in the current body of evidence, primarily arising from concerns related to the quality of studies, the limited size of the participant populations and most importantly the lack of diversity and standardization in the compared interventions. It is therefore imperative for future studies to be methodologically rigorous and investigate a broader spectrum of available interventions. We encourage clinicians and researchers to review current World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines for suggestions on how to use milk replacement formulas in clinical practice and what additional research would be the most beneficial.

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.

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.

GRADE guidance 39: using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. METHODS: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval. RESULTS: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others. CONCLUSION: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

Latin American panelists find GRADE-ADOLOPMENT useful and important to contextualize recommendations in their region.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT is widely applied to efficiently use existing credible guidelines and contextualize them to a target setting. To highlight the experiences of a Latin American Guideline Development Group (GDG) applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adapt the American Society of Hematology's clinical practice guideline on managing venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in Latin America. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We employed a mixed-method postevaluation using self-administered surveys and semistructured interviews. We assessed the Latin American GDG (1) general satisfaction and confidence using the approach, (2) their ratings on the usefulness, appropriateness, and importance of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT and its tools to inform their judgements, and (3) any additional facilitators and barriers to refine the process. RESULTS: Eleven of the 14 GDG members, including nine panelists and two methodologists, provided survey responses and eight participated in the interview. Respondents felt "mostly" or "completely" satisfied with the adapted guideline. Eight panelists who were surveyed agree that GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is useful in countries with limited resources. Although panelists expressed initial apprehensions in their understanding of the process, they demonstrated enhanced confidence in their capacity to apply GRADE after completing workshop training and by acquiring experience. Panelists reiterated the importance of considering evidence-to-decision (EtD) criteria (ie, resources, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness) when adapting recommendations. The GDG encountered challenges with collecting local and regional data, prioritizing recommendations while considering intraregional diversity, and the lengthy publication period, although the latter stemmed from procedures not related to GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is an important tool to facilitate the adaptation and uptake of clinical practice guidelines in novel settings. The GDG felt satisfied with their overall experience using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. However, their experience could have been optimized if they had access to robust regional evidence, more recommendations to adapt from, and worked with more efficient guideline production timelines.

Concepts for the Development of Person-Centered, Digitally Enabled, Artificial Intelligence-Assisted ARIA Care Pathways (ARIA 2024).

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own lives based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality, and coordination, as well as quality of life, is an important aim in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centered care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (1) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (2) digitally enabled, person-centered care.1 It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally enabled, patient-centered care. The paper includes (1) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a 2-decade journey, (2) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (3) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (4) From guidelines to digital care pathways, (5) Embedding Planetary Health, (6) Novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (7) Embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (8) The ARIA-EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (9) Artificial intelligence, (10) The development of digitally enabled, ARIA person-centered care, and (11) The political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centered around the patient to make them more applicable and sustainable.

Required knowledge for guideline panel members to develop healthcare related testing recommendations: a developmental study.

OBJECTIVES: To define the minimum knowledge required for guideline panel members (healthcare professionals and consumers) involved in developing recommendations about healthcare related testing. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A developmental study with a multistaged approach. We derived a first set of knowledge components from literature and subsequently performed semistructured interviews with 9 experts. We refined the set of knowledge components and checked it with the interviewees for final approval. RESULTS: Understanding the test-management pathway, for example, how test results should be used in context of decisions about interventions, is the key knowledge component. The final list includes 26 items on the following topics: health question, test-management pathway, target population, test, test result, interpretation of test results and subsequent management, and impact on people important outcomes. For each item, the required level of knowledge is defined. CONCLUSION: We developed a list of knowledge components required for guideline panels to formulate recommendations on healthcare related testing. The list could be used to design specific training programs for guideline panel members when developing recommendations about tests and testing strategies in healthcare.

Embedding patients' values and preferences in guideline development for allergic diseases: The case study of Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma 2024.

Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision-making context, patients' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence-to-Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade-off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health-related quality of life, such as EQ-5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person-centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XII - Recommendations on milk formula supplements with and without probiotics for infants and toddlers with CMA.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

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.

GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance. RESULTS: Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision. CONCLUSION: This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.

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.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E).

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

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.