Evidence-based Perioperative Practice Utilization among Various Racial Populations-A Retrospective Cohort Trending Analysis of Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated racial disparities in perioperative care and outcomes. The authors hypothesize that among lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients, evidence-based perioperative practice utilization increased over time among all racial groups, and that standardized evidence-based perioperative practice care protocols resulted in reduction of racial disparities and improved outcomes. METHODS: The study analyzed 3,356,805 lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients from the Premier Healthcare database (Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc., USA). The exposure of interest was race (White, Black, Asian, other). Outcomes were evidence-based perioperative practice adherence (eight individual care components; more than 80% of these implemented was defined as "high evidence-based perioperative practice"), any major complication (including acute renal failure, delirium, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, stroke, or in-hospital mortality), in-hospital mortality, and prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Evidence-based perioperative practice adherence rate has increased over time and was associated with reduced complications across all racial groups. However, utilization among Black patients was below that for White patients between 2006 and 2021 (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.95]; 45.50% vs. 47.90% on average). Independent of whether evidence-based perioperative practice components were applied, Black patients exhibited higher odds of major complications (1.61 [95% CI, 1.55 to 1.67] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.43 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.48] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), mortality (1.70 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.25] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.29 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.51] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), and prolonged length of stay (1.45 [95% CI, 1.42 to 1.48] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.38 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.40] without high evidence-based perioperative practice) compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based perioperative practice utilization in lower extremity joint arthroplasty has been increasing during the last decade. However, racial disparities still exist with Black patients consistently having lower odds of evidence-based perioperative practice adherence. Black patients (compared to the White patients) exhibited higher odds of composite major complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, independent of evidence-based perioperative practice use, suggesting that evidence-based perioperative practice did not impact racial disparities regarding particularly the Black patients in this surgical cohort.

Use of Real-World Data and Evidence in Drug Development of Medicinal Products Centrally Authorized in Europe in 2018-2019.

Real-world data/real-world evidence (RWD/RWE) are considered to have a great potential to complement, in some cases, replace the evidence generated through randomized controlled trials. By tradition, use of RWD/RWE in the postauthorization phase is well-known, whereas published evidence of use in the pre-authorization phase of medicines development is lacking. The primary aim of this study was to identify and quantify the role of potential use of RWD/RWE (RWE signatures) during the pre-authorization phase, as presented in the initial marketing authorization applications of new medicines centrally evaluated with a positive opinion in 2018-2019 (n = 111) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Data for the study was retrieved from the evaluation overviews of the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), which reflect the scientific conclusions of the assessment process and are accessible through the EMA website. RWE signatures were extracted into an RWE Data Matrix, including 11 categories divided over 5 stages of the drug development lifecycle. Nearly all EPARs included RWE signatures for the discovery (98.2%) and life-cycle management (100.0%). Half of them included RWE signatures for the full development phase (48.6%) and for supporting regulatory decisions at the registration (46.8%), whereas over a third (35.1%) included RWE signatures for the early development. RWE signatures were more often seen for orphan and conditionally approved medicines. Oncology, hematology, and anti-infectives stood out as therapeutic areas with most RWE signatures in their full development phase. The findings bring unprecedented insights about the vast use of RWD/RWE in drug development supporting the regulatory decision making.

Understanding Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisions on Medical Product Effectiveness.

RWE has potential to provide efficient and relevant information on the effectiveness of medical products, complementing the data generated in clinical trials; however, how RWE can support regulatory decision-making is unclear, potentially limiting its use. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize instances where RWE was included in the evidence package to support the effectiveness of a medical product regulated by U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A retrospective landscape analysis was conducted to identify instances where RWE was submitted to support effectiveness through targeted review of white and gray literature and publicly available FDA reviews of medical products. Trained evaluators examined FDA reviews to determine if and how RWE contributed to regulatory decision-making regarding effectiveness. Evaluators identified 34 instances of RWE submitted between 1954 and 2020, where 26% of instances were for oncology, 18% for hematology, and 12% for neurology. Over 50% of the products were indicated for use in rare disease or pediatric populations. 82% of products where RWE was submitted received an orphan designation. RWE was included in the product label in 59% of instances. Stated reasons indicating why submitted RWE did not significantly contribute to regulatory decision-making included lack of pre-specification of study design and analysis as well as data reliability and relevancy concerns. While there is historical use of RWE to support medical product effectiveness for oncology and rare diseases, potential exists to leverage the strengths of RWE to support other therapeutic areas and capture outcomes that are most relevant to patients.

Opioid Prescribing after Carpal Tunnel Release: Analysis from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the national practice patterns for postoperative opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release, which is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. The authors sought to assess the rate of opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release and patient-, surgeon-, and practice-level predictors of opioid prescriptions after surgery. METHODS: The authors conducted a cohort study from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery, a national consortium of nine practices with 33 surgeons who prospectively collect data for the purpose of quality improvement. Patients were included who underwent carpal tunnel release between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine practice and surgeon variation in postoperative opioid prescribing related to patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 648 patients with 792 operative hands, 52.9 percent were prescribed a postoperative opioid. After controlling for patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics, endoscopic carpal tunnel releases were associated with a decreased odds of receiving a postoperative opioid prescription compared to open carpal tunnel releases (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.52). However, 57.4 percent of the variation in opioid prescribing was explained at the practice level, and 4.1 percent of the variation was explained at the surgeon level. CONCLUSIONS: Practice-level prescribing patterns play a substantial role in opioid prescribing. National efforts should consider development of evidence-based opioid prescribing recommendations for carpal tunnel release that target all prescribers, including trainees and advanced practice providers. In addition, endoscopic carpal tunnel release may offer an opportunity to minimize opioid prescribing. The authors recommend that providers encourage the use of nonopioid analgesia and limit opioid prescriptions after carpal tunnel release. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

The UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers' experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support. CONCLUSION: The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool.

Informing the GRADE evidence to decision process with health equity considerations: demonstration from the Canadian rheumatoid arthritis care context.

OBJECTIVES: Health equity is a priority for clinical and public health practice and promoted in GRADE's Evidence to Decision (EtD) Framework, yet there is still limited integration of specific equity considerations in chronic disease guideline development and implementation. Our objective was to embed equity considerations for upcoming Canadian Rheumatoid Arthritis treatment guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In parallel with the Guidelines Committee process, considerations for six population groups (rural and remote residents, Indigenous Peoples, elderly persons with frailty, minority populations of first-generation immigrants and refugees, persons with low socioeconomic status or who are vulnerably housed, and sex and gender populations) based on literature reviews and key informant interviews were identified and contextualized to each step in the GRADE EtD framework. RESULTS: The EtD Framework domains relevant to rheumatoid arthritis treatment and management were analyzed through patient-centric, social determinant and economic lenses, while considering implementation feasibility. This determined tailored considerations relevant to recommendations for the priority populations to mitigate potential intervention-generated inequities. CONCLUSION: This approach provides a demonstration of the process of incorporating equity in the evidence to decision process and can be applied in future rheumatic disease guidelines while also informing a research agenda for equity in rheumatology outcomes.

The obesity wars and the education of a researcher: A personal account.

A naïve researcher published a scientific article in a respectable journal. She thought her article was straightforward and defensible. It used only publicly available data, and her findings were consistent with much of the literature on the topic. Her coauthors included two distinguished statisticians. To her surprise her publication was met with unusual attacks from some unexpected sources within the research community. These attacks were by and large not pursued through normal channels of scientific discussion. Her research became the target of an aggressive campaign that included insults, errors, misinformation, social media posts, behind-the-scenes gossip and maneuvers, and complaints to her employer. The goal appeared to be to undermine and discredit her work. The controversy was something deliberately manufactured, and the attacks primarily consisted of repeated assertions of preconceived opinions. She learned first-hand the antagonism that could be provoked by inconvenient scientific findings. Guidelines and recommendations should be based on objective and unbiased data. Development of public health policy and clinical recommendations is complex and needs to be evidence-based rather than belief-based. This can be challenging when a hot-button topic is involved.

Guidelines that use the GRADE approach often fail to provide complete economic information for recommendations: A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how developers and panel members report cost and cost effectiveness considerations in GRADE guideline Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. A systematic survey was conducted to explore approaches and factors contributing to variability in economic information reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guideline organization websites were systematically searched to create a convenience sample of guidelines. Reviewers screened published EtD frameworks and generated frequencies of reporting approaches. We used thematic analysis to summarize factors related to variability of economic information reporting. RESULTS: We included 142 guidelines. The overall rate of reporting economic information was high (91%); however, there was variability across completion of predefined EtD Likert-type judgments (70%), noting information as not identified across EtD framework domains (57%), and providing remarks to justify recommendations (38%). Six themes contributing to variability emerged, related to: intervention, population, payor, provider, healthcare resource use, and economic model building factors. Only 2 guidelines performed a GRADE certainty appraisal of economic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Completing predefined EtD Likert-type judgments, specifically reporting a literature review approach, study selection criteria and economic model building limitations, as well as linking these to recommendation justification remarks are potential areas for improved use, adoption and adaptation of recommendation, and transparency of GRADE EtD frameworks.

Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to Manage COVID-19 Scientific Evidence Torrent with Risklick AI: A Critical Tool for Pharmacology and Therapy Development.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to one of the most critical and boundless waves of publications in the history of modern science. The necessity to find and pursue relevant information and quantify its quality is broadly acknowledged. Modern information retrieval techniques combined with artificial intelligence (AI) appear as one of the key strategies for COVID-19 living evidence management. Nevertheless, most AI projects that retrieve COVID-19 literature still require manual tasks. METHODS: In this context, we pre-sent a novel, automated search platform, called Risklick AI, which aims to automatically gather COVID-19 scientific evidence and enables scientists, policy makers, and healthcare professionals to find the most relevant information tailored to their question of interest in real time. RESULTS: Here, we compare the capacity of Risklick AI to find COVID-19-related clinical trials and scientific publications in comparison with clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed in the field of pharmacology and clinical intervention. DISCUSSION: The results demonstrate that Risklick AI is able to find COVID-19 references more effectively, both in terms of precision and recall, compared to the baseline platforms. Hence, Risklick AI could become a useful alternative assistant to scientists fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 update of the AGIHO guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer regarding diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy.

The worldwide spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated infectious coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed a unique challenge to medical staff, patients and their families. Patients with cancer, particularly those with haematologic malignancies, have been identified to be at high risk to develop severe COVID-19. Since publication of our previous guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer, research efforts have continued and new relevant data has come to light, maybe most importantly in the field of vaccination studies. Therefore, an update of our guideline on several clinically important topics is warranted. Here, we provide a concise update of evidence-based recommendations for rapid diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. This guideline update was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology by critically reviewing the currently available data on these topics applying evidence-based medicine criteria.

Utilization of systemic therapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Lessons from real world experience.

Metastatic bladder cancer has poor overall survival. Though systemic therapies have shown to improve overall survival, real-world studies have shown that more than half of the patients do not receive any systemic therapy, while only around 15-20% receive second-line therapy. Even in patients receiving systemic therapies a disproportionately higher use of carboplatin is observed in the first line despite proven superior effectiveness of cisplatin. Reasons for these observations include moderate effectiveness and relatively toxicity of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, concerns with performance status and co-morbidities in this predominantly older patient population, communications barriers, lack of social support, and access to affordable healthcare. Herein we discuss potential ways to overcome these challenges which include (1) preventing/delaying metastatic disease by maximizing the receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based therapy, and development of better tolerated and more effective neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, (2) use of avelumab maintenance therapy after 4-6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to overcome attrition of patients from first to second-line therapy, (3) advancing effective and well-tolerated systemic therapies such as enfortumab vedotin, and erdafitinib to the first-line metastatic setting or even to the localized setting, (4) further development of effective and well-tolerated therapies like sacituzumab govitecan, a novel antibody-drug conjugate and (5) improving affordability and accessibility to systemic therapy agents.

An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. METHODS: The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.

Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions.

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge.In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users' needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews.The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.

Periprocedural complications in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those without infection: A nationwide propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11-30 days and >30 days) on outcomes. RESULTS: Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11-30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test. DISCUSSION: 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.

Benefits and limitations of real-world evidence: lessons from EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, they do not always reflect real-world patient populations, limiting their generalizability and external validity. Real-world evidence (RWE), generated during routine clinical practice, is increasingly important in determining effectiveness outside of the tightly controlled conditions of RCTs, and is now recognized by regulatory bodies as a valuable complement to RCTs. Consequently, it is increasingly important for physicians to understand how RWE data can be used alongside clinical trial data. Here, we discuss the different types of real-world observational studies, outline the benefits and limitations of RWE, and, using examples from EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, outline how RWE can be used to help inform treatment decisions.

The Application and Implications of Novel Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis Methods.

Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) remain important to interpret the effect of uncertainties in individual parameters on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Classic DSA methodologies may lead to wrong conclusions due to a lack of or misleading information regarding marginal effects, non-linearity, likelihood and correlations. In addition, tornado diagrams are misleading in some situations. Recent advances in DSA methods have the potential to provide decision makers with more reliable information regarding the effects of uncertainties in individual parameters. This practical application discusses advances to classic DSA methods and their implications. Three methods are discussed: stepwise DSA, distributional DSA and probabilistic DSA. For each method, the technical specifications, options for presenting results, and its implications for decision making are discussed. Options for visualizing DSA results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and in incremental net benefits are presented. The use of stepwise DSA increases interpretability of marginal effects and non-linearities in the model, which is especially relevant when arbitrary ranges are implemented. Using the probability distribution of each parameter in distributional DSA provides insight on the likelihood of model outcomes while probabilistic DSA also includes the effects of correlations between parameters.Probabilistic DSA, preferably expressed in incremental net benefit, is the most appropriate method for providing insight on the effect of uncertainty in individual parameters on the estimate of cost effectiveness. However, the opportunities provided by probabilistic DSA may not always be needed for decision making. Other DSA methods, in particular distributional DSA, can sometimes be sufficient depending on model features. Decision makers must determine to which extent they will accept and implement these new and improved DSA methodologies and adjust guidelines accordingly.

Individual point-of-care trials: a new approach to incorporate patient's preferences into personalized pragmatic clinical trials.

Although Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and Patient-centered medicine (PCM) are often perceived as two conflicting paradigms that speak the language of populations and the language of individuals, respectively, both share the common objective of improving the care of individual patients. As physicians should not practice an EBM that is away from the individual patient nor a PCM that is not based on the best available evidence, it is crucial to connect and combine both movements, promoting the fruitful and natural interaction between research and care. Achieving such interaction requires developing new individual-patient centric research methods. In this commentary, we propose an innovative clinical research design oriented to personalize point-of-care trials-integrating clinical research and medical care-through the incorporation of individual patients' preferences to build personalized research protocols. Building on the framework of N-of-1 studies, in "individual point-of-care trials," each protocol could be personalized for each patient so that the therapeutic objectives, the outcome variables analyzed, and the (operationalization of the) compared interventions would be based not only on the clinical and biological characteristics of each patient but also on their individual preferences, goals, and values. If patient preferences are being progressively integrated into medical practice, it makes sense that they also are incorporated into clinical trials embedded in care delivery. The proposal to perform individual point of care trials may be an optimal way to combine EBM and PCM while preserving their foundational principles, and to ensure the connection between "personalized" and "personal" care.