Perennial biomass cropping and use: Shaping the policy ecosystem in European countries.

Demand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023-27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio-economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low-carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long-term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts.

Appetite stimulants for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index (BMI) and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. This is an updated version of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To systematically search for and evaluate the evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of cystic fibrosis-related anorexia and synthesise reports of any side effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and online trials registries; handsearched reference lists; and contacted local and international experts to identify relevant trials. Last search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 23 May 2022. Last search of online trial registries: 10 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants compared to placebo, control, no treatment or different appetite stimulants, or to the same appetite stimulants at different doses or regimens for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and performed meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (70 participants) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate) to placebo; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low due to the small number of participants, incomplete or selective outcome reporting, and unclear risk of selection bias.  Regarding our primary outcomes, a meta-analysis of two trials (42 participants) showed that appetite stimulants may produce a larger increase in weight (kg) at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.25 kg, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.45 to 2.05), and one trial (17 participants) showed a similar result at six months (MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.33) (both low-certainty evidence). Results also showed that weight z score may increase with appetite stimulants compared to placebo at three months (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; 3 studies; 40 participants; P < 0.001) and at six months (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22; 1 trial; 17 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in effect between cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate for either outcome.   Only one trial (25 participants) reported analysable data for body composition (BMI), with results favouring cyproheptadine hydrochloride compared to placebo; a further trial (16 participants) narratively agreed with this result. All four trials reported on lung function at durations ranging from two to nine months. Considering analysable data, two trials (42 participants) found that appetite stimulants may make little or no difference in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted at three months, and one trial (17 participants) found similar results at six months. Two further three-month trials narratively agreed with these results. Limited information was reported for secondary outcomes. Two trials (23 participants) reported results showing that appetite stimulants may increase appetite compared to placebo at three months (odds ratio 45.25, 95% CI 3.57 to 573.33; low-certainty evidence).  Only one study reported on quality of life, finding that cyproheptadine reduced fatigue in two participants compared with none with placebo. One study (25 participants) found no difference in energy intake between appetite stimulant or placebo at three months. Insufficient reporting of adverse effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Two studies (33 participants) narratively reported similar requirements for additional antibiotics between appetite stimulants and placebo at three months.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At six months in adults and children, appetite stimulants improved only two of the outcomes of this review: weight (or weight z score) and subjectively reported appetite. Insufficient reporting of side effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Whilst the data may suggest the potential use of appetite stimulants in treating anorexia in adults and children with cystic fibrosis, this is based upon low-certainty evidence from a small number of trials, therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential adverse effects of appetite stimulants and actively monitor any individuals prescribed these medications accordingly. Research is required to determine meaningful surrogate measures for appetite and to define what constitutes quality weight gain. Future trials of appetite stimulants should use a validated measure of symptoms including a disease-specific instrument for measuring poor appetite. This review highlights the need for multicentred, adequately powered, and well-designed trials to evaluate agents to safely increase appetite in people with cystic fibrosis and to establish the optimal mode of treatment.

Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of last search: 12 December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (reported in 36 unique publications) were included with a total of 784 participants. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population. Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality. For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF. For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.

Most guideline organizations lack explicit guidance in how to incorporate cost considerations.

OBJECTIVES: Resource use and cost (RUC) evidence is one of the factors that can be considered when formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, it is unclear how CPG developers incorporate this information. The purpose of this study was to identify available guidance from guideline organizations on how to incorporate RUC in CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a methodological survey. We searched MEDLINE, the G-I-N library, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and gray literature from inception to 2017. We included the most recent version of guidance documents. We excluded those that only reported methodology for adapting, endorsing, or updating CPGs, and documents reporting methods followed in the development of one or more specific CPGs. RESULTS: We included 77 documents from 67 organizations. Fifty-nine organizations (88.1%) include information regarding RUC during the CPG development process. Fifty-five (82.1%) organizations report taking RUC into account when developing recommendations: 44 (65.7%) do this explicitly, 5 (7.5%) implicitly, and 6 (9.0%) explicitly as optional. Twelve of the 44 organizations that explicitly consider RUC (27.3%) provide guidance to identify, assess and use the RUC evidence when developing recommendations. Twenty-three consider RUC when moving from the evidence to recommendations (52.3%). Seventeen of the 44 (38.6%) recommend making qualitative judgments about whether the desirable effects of interventions were worth the associated costs. CONCLUSION: More explicit guidance is needed alongside tools to help CPGs developers incorporate RUC evidence when formulating recommendations. Our results may be of use for guideline developers to improve this guidance.

Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 28 September 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (reported in 50 publications) were included with a total of 784 participants.Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population.Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies.Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality.For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF.For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations.In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.

Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate practicing physicians' preferences, perceived usefulness and understanding of a new multilayered guideline presentation format-compared to a standard format-as well as conceptual understanding of trustworthy guideline concepts. DESIGN: Participants attended a standardised lecture in which they were presented with a clinical scenario and randomised to view a guideline recommendation in a multilayered format or standard format after which they answered multiple-choice questions using clickers. Both groups were also presented and asked about guideline concepts. SETTING: Mandatory educational lectures in 7 non-academic and academic hospitals, and 2 settings involving primary care in Lebanon, Norway, Spain and the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 181 practicing physicians in internal medicine (156) and general practice (25). INTERVENTIONS: A new digitally structured, multilayered guideline presentation format and a standard narrative presentation format currently in widespread use. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was preference for presentation format. Understanding, perceived usefulness and perception of absolute effects were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 72% (95% CI 65 to 79) of participants preferred the multilayered format and 16% (95% CI 10 to 22) preferred the standard format. A majority agreed that recommendations (multilayered 86% vs standard 91%, p value=0.31) and evidence summaries (79% vs 77%, p value=0.76) were useful in the context of the clinical scenario. 72% of participants randomised to the multilayered format vs 58% for standard formats reported correct understanding of the recommendations (p value=0.06). Most participants elected an appropriate clinical action after viewing the recommendations (98% vs 92%, p value=0.10). 82% of the participants considered absolute effect estimates in evidence summaries helpful or crucial. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians clearly preferred a novel multilayered presentation format to the standard format. Whether the preferred format improves decision-making and has an impact on patient important outcomes merits further investigation.

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions. METHODS: Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harms, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decision making.

Anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics for managing symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis-related arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis are described in cystic fibrosis: cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy (CFA) and hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy (HPO). Management of arthritis in people with cystic fibrosis is uncertain and complex because of the underlying disease and its intense treatment. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological agents for the symptomatic management of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 19 January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies which compared the efficacy and safety of anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, systemic corticosteroids, intra-articular corticosteroids) with each other, with no treatment or with placebo for CFA and HPO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant studies were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although it is generally recognised that CFA may be episodic and resolve spontaneously, treatment with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents may be needed. While this approach may be sufficient to manage symptoms, it is disappointing that no randomised controlled trials to rigorously evaluate these agents were found, nor could the authors identify any quasi-randomised. This systematic review has identified the need for a well-designed adequately-powered randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents for the symptomatic management of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis (CFA and HPO) in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. Studies should also better define the two conditions. A study has recently been conducted in CFA and may help fill this gap when analysed and published.There are no trials included in the review up to January 2016. We will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant studies; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new studies are published.

Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Inhaled dry powder mannitol is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. The exact mechanism of action of mannitol is unknown, but it increases mucociliary clearance. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 16 April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified nine separate studies (45 publications), of which four studies (36 publications) were included with a total of 667 participants, one study (only available as an abstract) is awaiting assessment and two studies are ongoing. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from two weeks to six months with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Three studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol); two of these were parallel studies with a similar design and data could be pooled, where data for a particular outcome and time point were available; also, one short-term cross-over study supplied additional results. The fourth study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. There was generally a low risk of bias in relation to randomisation and blinding; evidence from the parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the cross-over studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. There was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised to the studies; therefore the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.For the comparison of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains, except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. Up to and including six months, lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume at one second (millilitres) and per cent predicted were significantly improved in all three studies comparing mannitol to control. Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non users. A significant reduction was shown in the incidence of pulmonary exacerbations in favour of mannitol at six months; however, the estimate of this effect was imprecise so it is unclear whether the effect is clinically meaningful. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects on both treatments. Mannitol was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over a six-month period.In the 12-week cross-over study (28 participants), no significant differences were found in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function between mannitol versus dornase alfa alone and versus mannitol plus dornase alfa. There seemed to be a higher rate of pulmonary exacerbations in the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm compared with dornase alfa alone; although not statistically significant, this was the most common reason for stopping treatment in this arm. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. Mannitol (with or without dornase alfa) was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over the 12-week period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is no evidence that quality of life is improved for participants taking mannitol compared to control; a decrease in burden of treatment was observed up to four months on mannitol compared to control but this difference was not maintained to six months. Randomised information regarding the burden of adding mannitol to an existing treatment is limited. There is no randomised evidence of improvement in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.Mannitol as a single or concomitant treatment to dornase alfa may be of benefit to people with cystic fibrosis, but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; however, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.

Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are typically written for healthcare providers but there is increasing interest in producing versions for the public, patients and carers. The main objective of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence of the public's attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based recommendations written for providers or the public, together with their awareness of guidelines. METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative studies of any design reporting on public, patient (and their carers) attitudes and awareness of guidelines written for providers or patients/public. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, ERIC, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2012. We also searched relevant websites, reviewed citations and contacted experts in the field. At least two authors independently screened, abstracted data and assessed the quality of studies. We conducted a thematic analysis of first and second order themes and performed a separate narrative synthesis of patient and public awareness of guidelines. RESULTS: We reviewed 5415 records and included 26 studies (10 qualitative studies, 13 cross sectional and 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 24 887 individuals. Studies were mostly good to fair quality. The thematic analysis resulted in four overarching themes: Applicability of guidelines; Purpose of guidelines for patient; Purpose of guidelines for health care system and physician; and Properties of guidelines. Overall, participants had mixed attitudes towards guidelines; some participants found them empowering but many saw them as a way of rationing care. Patients were also concerned that the information may not apply to their own health care situations. Awareness of guidelines ranged from 0-79%, with greater awareness in participants surveyed on national guideline websites. CONCLUSION: There are many factors, not only formatting, that may affect the uptake and use of guideline-derived material by the public. Producers need to make clear how the information is relevant to the reader and how it can be used to make healthcare improvements although there were problems with data quality. Awareness of guidelines is generally low and guideline producers cannot assume that the public has a more positive perception of their material than of alternative sources of health information.

Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

BACKGROUND: Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. METHODS: We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. RESULTS: We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. INTERPRETATION: The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.

Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. METHODS: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. DISCUSSION: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program.

OBJECTIVES: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a system for rating the confidence in estimates of effect and grading guideline recommendations. It promotes evaluation of the quality of the evidence for each outcome and an assessment of balance between desirable and undesirable outcomes leading to a judgment about the strength of the recommendation. In 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence began introducing GRADE across its clinical guideline program to enable separation of judgments about the evidence quality from judgments about the strength of the recommendation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We describe the process of implementing GRADE across guidelines. RESULTS: Use of GRADE has been positively received by both technical staff and guideline development group members. CONCLUSION: A shift in thinking about confidence in the evidence was required leading to a more structured and transparent approach to decision making. Practical problems were also encountered; these have largely been resolved, but some areas require further work, including the application of imprecision and presenting results from analyses considering more than two alternative interventions. The use of GRADE for nonrandomized and diagnostic accuracy studies needs to be refined.

Disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with cystic fibrosis-related arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis are described in cystic fibrosis: cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. Management of arthritis in people with cystic fibrosis is uncertain and complex because of the underlying disease and its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the management of arthritis related to cystic fibrosis in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database handsearches of relevant journal and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 10 July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (e.g. methotrexate, gold, sulfasalazine, penicillamine, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine and newer agents such as biologic disease modifying agents and monoclonal antibodies) with each other, with no treatment or with placebo for cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy or hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant studies were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although it is generally recognised that cystic fibrosis-related arthritis can be episodic and resolve spontaneously, treatment with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents may be needed. But when episodic symptoms progress to persistent disease, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs may be needed to limit the course of the disease. It is disappointing that no randomised controlled trials to rigorously evaluate these drugs could be found. This systematic review has identified the need for a well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the management of cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. However, given the infrequency of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis and the range of symptoms and severity, randomised controlled trials may not be feasible and well-designed non-randomised observational studies may be more appropriate. Studies should also better define the two conditions.

Anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics for managing symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis-related arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis are described in cystic fibrosis: cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy (CFA) and hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy (HPO). Management of arthritis in people with cystic fibrosis is uncertain and complex because of the underlying disease and its intense treatment. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological agents for the symptomatic management of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 16 December 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared the efficacy and safety of anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, systemic corticosteroids, intra-articular corticosteroids) with each other, with no treatment or with placebo for CFA and HPO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant studies were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although it is generally recognised that CFA may be episodic and resolve spontaneously, treatment with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents may be needed. While this approach may be sufficient to manage symptoms, it is disappointing that no randomised controlled trials to rigorously evaluate these agents were found, nor could the authors identify any quasi-randomised. This systematic review has identified the need for a well-designed adequately-powered randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents for the symptomatic management of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis (CFA and HPO) in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. Studies should also better define the two conditions. A study has recently been conducted in CFA and may help fill this gap when analysed and published.There are no trials included in the review up to January 2012. We do not plan to update this review until new trials are published, although we will search the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on a two-yearly cycle.

Are pharmacists reducing COPD'S impact through smoking cessation and assessing inhaled steroid use?

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) COPD 2004 guidelines recommend: ∗ COPD patients who smoke should be encouraged to stop at every opportunity; ∗ Inhaled corticosteroid should be used only among patients with moderate to severe COPD; ∗ Pharmacists should identify smokers and provide smoking cessation advice. The community pharmacy contract requires pharmacists to review patients' medications, creating an opportunity for reviewing the prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. The survey explored the degree to which community pharmacists in North West England identify and provide advice to smokers and assess prescribed inhaled corticosteroids among COPD patients. METHODS: A self-completion questionnaire was sent to 2080 community pharmacists from the 2005 pharmacist census database. RESULTS: Of the 1051 (50.5%) respondants, 37.1% mentioned COPD as a risk from smoking most or every time and 54.5% sometimes or rarely, and 19.6% routinely asked about smoking status when dispensing COPD medication. Pharmacists with more than 20 years experience were more likely to have read the Guideline compared to pharmacists with 10 years or less (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.10). Pharmacists who had read the NICE Guideline (46.8%) were around twice as likely to mention COPD as a risk of smoking, ask about COPD if inhaled corticosteroids were dispensed and ask about smoking routinely if COPD medication was dispensed. (p<0.005). CONCLUSION: The NICE guidelines on COPD encourage community pharmacists to carry out smoking cessation and educational interventions, but further support is needed.

Bone health in adult men and women with a history of juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine areal bone mineral density (BMD(a)) and disease-related factors linked with BMD(a) in adults with a history of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Men and women with a history of JIA attending a young adult rheumatology clinic in Newcastle, UK, underwent dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) of the lumbar spine and total hip. Information was obtained about disease duration and subtype, previous treatment including corticosteroid and methotrexate therapy, and large-joint replacement. Subjects completed the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Blood was taken for assessment of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and rheumatoid factor (RF). RESULTS: Seventy-one women and 16 men, mean age 28.7 and 31.4 years, and mean disease duration 20.6 and 24.0 years, respectively, were studied. Mean BMD(a) was 0.982 (Z-score = -0.328; 95% CI -0.657, 0.001) and 1.028 g/cm(2) (Z-score = -0.251; 95% CI -1.266, 0.764) in women and men, respectively, at the spine and 0.817 (Z-score = -0.542; 95% CI -0.975, -0.109) and 0.857 g/cm(2) (Z-score = -0.176; 95% CI -2.323, 1.971) at the hip. After adjusting for age and sex, increasing HAQ score was associated with both lower spine BMD(a) and hip BMD(a). Compared with patients with oligoarticular disease, those with enthesitis-related arthritis had higher BMD(a) at the spine, while those with extended oligoarticular and polyarticular RF-negative disease had lower hip BMD(a). Oral corticosteroids and the presence of a large-joint replacement were associated with lower BMD(a) at both the spine and hip. CONCLUSION: There was a trend toward low BMD(a) in women with a history of JIA. These patients may be at risk of the complications of osteoporosis including fragility fractures and should be considered for targeted preventive measures.

Disease activity and disability in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis one year following presentation to paediatric rheumatology. Results from the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Inflammatory arthritis in childhood is variable in terms of both presentation and outcome. This analysis describes disease activity in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) during the first year following presentation to a paediatric rheumatologist and identifies predictors of moderate to severe disability [defined using a Childhood HAQ (CHAQ) score >or=0.75] at 1 year. METHODS: The Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study recruits children <16 years with new inflammatory arthritis persisting for >or=2 weeks from five UK tertiary referral centres. Demographics, disease features, joint count, CHAQ, physician's global assessment, parent's general evaluation of well-being (PGE), ESR and treatment, are collected at first presentation, 6 months and then yearly. Independent predictors of CHAQ >or=0.75 at 1 year in children diagnosed with JIA were identified using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty children with JIA were included; median age at presentation 7.6 years, 64% girls. During the first year, 85% received NSAIDs, 70% IA corticosteroids, 47% MTX and 27% systemic steroids (oral or i.v.). Median presenting CHAQ score was 0.63 and decreased to 0.25 at 1 year; 32% had CHAQ >or=0.75 at 1 year. The strongest predictor of CHAQ >or=0.75 at 1 year was CHAQ >or=0.75 at presentation (odds ratio 3.92; 95% CI 2.17, 7.09). Additional predictors included female gender and higher PGE. CONCLUSION: Although CHAQ score improved in most children, the strongest predictor of persistent disability at 1 year was moderate to severe disability at first presentation. Follow-up beyond 1 year will assess whether CHAQ at presentation will continue to be a predictor of future poor outcome.

Disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with cystic fibrosis-related arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthritis remains a relatively infrequent complication of cystic fibrosis, but is a cause of significant morbidity when it does occur. Two distinct types of arthritis are described in cystic fibrosis: cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. Management of arthritis in people with cystic fibrosis is uncertain and complex because of the underlying disease and its treatment. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of arthritis related to cystic fibrosis in adults and children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database handsearches of relevant journal and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: May 2008 SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared the efficacy and safety of DMARDs (e.g. methotrexate, gold, sulfasalazine, penicillamine, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine and newer agents such as biologic disease modifying agents and monoclonal antibodies) with each other, with no treatment or with placebo for cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy or hypertrophic osteoarthropathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant studies were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although it is generally recognised that cystic fibrosis-related arthritis can be episodic and resolve spontaneously, treatment with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents may be needed. But when episodic symptoms progress to persistent disease, DMARDs may be needed to limit the course of the disease. It is disappointing that no randomised controlled trials to rigorously evaluate DMARDs could be found. This systematic review has identified the need for a well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of DMARDs for the management of cystic fibrosis-related arthropathy and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. However, given the infrequency of cystic fibrosis-related arthritis and the range of symptoms and severity, randomised controlled trials may not be feasible and well-designed non-randomised observational studies may be more appropriate. Studies should also better define the two conditions.