The methodological quality is insufficient in clinical practice guidelines in the context of COVID-19: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. RESULTS: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline. CONCLUSION: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.

New Medications Are Needed for Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To document the need for additional Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: The electronic medical records of JIA patients treated at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and data from JIA patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry were included in this study. Unmet medication need was defined in 2 ways: (a) the presence of chronically uncontrolled JIA, defined as a physician global assessment of JIA activity ≥3 (on a 0-10 scale, where 0 = inactive) OR ≥3 joints with active arthritis OR a patient global assessment of well-being ≥3 (on a 0-10 scale, where 0 = very well), despite sequential use of ≥2 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs); and (b) the use of ≥1 bDMARD not approved for any JIA category. RESULTS: At CCHMC, 829 of 1,599 JIA patients (52%) were treated with ≥1 bDMARD, and 304 (19%) had been exposed to ≥1 unapproved bDMARD. In the CARRA Registry, 4,766 of 7,379 children (65%) had received ≥1 bDMARD, and 1,122 (15%) had been prescribed ≥1 unapproved bDMARD. Of those children treated with ≥2 bDMARDs for whom complete data were available, 52% (255 of 487) at CCHMC and 45% (527 of 1,159) in the CARRA Registry had chronically uncontrolled JIA despite the use of ≥2 bDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of bDMARDs currently approved for JIA, there is persistent need for additional therapies to control JIA signs and symptoms. Since FDA approval is critical to ensure access to bDMARDs, the study and licensing of new medications is critical to address the unmet medication need and to further improve JIA outcomes.

Early identification of young children with hearing loss in federally qualified health centers.

OBJECTIVE: While newborn hearing screening has improved outcomes for children diagnosed with hearing loss, the screening protocol is incomplete in the critical early developmental years, particularly among underserved populations. To address this gap, 7 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) implemented a periodic, objective infant-toddler hearing screening program during well-child visits. The study aimed to determine the ability of these primary care providers to implement the hearing screening protocol and to identify children in need of audiologic follow-up. METHOD: This study represents a prospective chart review. Children aged 0 to 3 years presenting to participating clinics for well-child care visits were offered the hearing screen, which included a brief risk factor questionnaire, otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), and tympanometry. Main outcome measures were time to screen, accuracy of physician interpretation of the tympanogram results, and screening results requiring immediate audiology follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1965 OAE screens, 75% took <10 minutes, and 205 patients (10%) failed OAEs in at least 1 ear; based on tympanometry, middle ear effusions were present in 102 of these cases (50%), while 45 cases (22%) raised concerns for sensorineural hearing loss. Physicians accurately interpreted tympanogram results in 89% of cases. There were 5 patients identified with confirmed permanent sensorineural hearing loss. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate that infant-toddler hearing screening in FQHCs is feasible to conduct, and it may effectively identify cases of postnatal hearing loss. This is one of the first studies in a primary care setting using OAE technology coupled with tympanometry, allowing physicians to better triage patients for immediate audiology referral.