Towards User-Oriented Recommendations for Local Therapy of Leg and Foot Ulcers—An Update of a S3-German Guideline

Background: The German S3- guideline on local therapy of leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers is in the process of being updated. Major goals are to improve the guidelines’ applicability and to take steps towards a living guideline according to current methodological standards. The aim of this article is to describe the main measures to achieve these goals. Methods: The context of the guideline in the field of local wound care and the stakeholder requirements are briefly described. Based on a derived framework, the project team adjusted the methods for the guideline. Results: Main adjustments are more specific inclusion criteria, online consensus meetings and the use of an authoring and publication platform to provide information in a multi-layered format. A new set of practice-oriented key questions were defined by the guideline panel to foster the formulation of action-oriented recommendations. Conclusions: The set of new key questions addressing practical problems and patients’ preferences as well as the adjustments made to improve not only the guidelines’ applicability, but also the feasibility of the further dynamic updating processes in the sense of a living guideline, should be steps in the right direction.

Methodology for adaptation of the ASH Guidelines for Management of Venous Thromboembolism for the Latin American context

Background: From 2017 to 2020, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) collaborated with 12 hematology societies in Latin America to adapt the ASH guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: To describe the methods used to adapt the ASH guidelines on venous thromboembolism. Methods: Each society nominated 1 individual to serve on the guideline panel. The work of the panel was facilitated by the 2 methodologists. The methods team selected 4 of the original VTE guidelines for a first round. To select the most relevant questions, a 2-step prioritization process was conducted through an on-line survey and then through in-person discussion. During an in-person meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 23 April through 26 April 2018, the panel developed recommendations using the ADOLOPMENT approach. Evidence about health effects from the original guidelines was reused, but important data about resource use, accessibility, feasibility, and impact in health equity were added. Results: In the guideline accompanying this paper, Latin American panelists selected 17 questions from an original pool of 49. Of the 17 questions addressed, substantial changes were introduced for 5 recommendations, and remarks were added or modified for 12 recommendations. Conclusions: By using the evidence from an international guideline, a significant amount of work and time were saved; by adding regional evidence, the final recommendations were tailored to the Latin American context. This experience offers an alternative to develop guidelines relevant to local contexts through a global collaboration.

ASH, ABHH, ACHO, Grupo CAHT, Grupo CLAHT, SAH, SBHH, SHU, SOCHIHEM, SOMETH, Sociedad Panameña de Hematología, SPH, and SVH 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism in Latin America

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease in Latin American settings. Implementing international guidelinn Aes in Latimerican settings requires additional considerations. Objective: The purpose of our study was to provide evidence-based guidelines about managing VTE for Latin American patients, clinicians, and decision makers. Methods: We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT method to adapt recommendations from 2 American Society of Hematology (ASH) VTE guidelines (Treatment of VTE and Anticoagulation Therapy). ASH and local hematology societies formed a guideline panel comprised of medical professionals from 10 countries in Latin America. Panelists prioritized 18 questions relevant for the Latin American context. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence reviews of health effects conducted for the original ASH guidelines and summarized information about factors specific to the Latin American context (ie, values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility, and impact on health equity). Results: The panel agreed on 17 recommendations. Compared with the original guideline, 4 recommendations changed direction and 1 changed strength. Conclusions: This guideline adolopment project highlighted the importance of contextualization of recommendations suggested by the changes to the original recommendations. The panel also identified 2 implementation priorities for the region: expanding the availability of home treatment and increasing the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The guideline panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of home treatment for individuals with deep venous thrombosis and a conditional recommendation for either home or hospital treatment for individuals with pulmonary embolism. In addition, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of DOACs over vitamin K antagonists for several populations.

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendation for the use of COVID-19 vaccination for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases

Objective To develop guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). Methods The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel including rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, vaccine experts and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach. Outcomes were prioritized according to their importance for patients and clinicians. Evidence from the COVID-19 clinical trials was summarized. Indirect evidence for non-COVID-19 vaccines in ARD was also considered. The GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework was used to develop a recommendation for the use of the four COVID vaccines approved in Canada as of March 25, 2021 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S) over four virtual panel meetings. Results The CRA guideline panel suggests using COVID-19 vaccination in persons with ARD. The panel unanimously agreed that for the majority of patients the potential health benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms in people with ARDs. The recommendation was graded as conditional because of low or very low certainty of the evidence about the effects in the population of interest primarily due to indirectness and imprecise effect estimates. The panel felt strongly that persons with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who meet local eligibility should not be required to take additional steps compared to people without autoimmune rheumatic diseases to obtain their vaccination. Guidance on medications, implementation, monitoring of vaccine uptake and research priorities are also provided. Conclusion This recommendation will be updated over time as new evidence emerges, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries and EtD available on the CRA website.

SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline

Clinical questionWhat are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes?Current practiceClinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications’ glucose-lowering potential.RecommendationsThe guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists.How this guideline was createdAn international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.The evidenceA linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients’ individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients’ values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey.Understanding the recommendationWe stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient’s individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.

Closing schools for SARS-CoV-2: a pragmatic rapid recommendation

BackgroundIn Belgium, schools closed during the first lockdown in March 2020, with a partial reopening in May. They fully reopened in September. During the summer, infections started to increase in the general population, speeding up in September. Some measures were taken to limit social contacts but those were insufficient to mitigate the exponential rise of infections in October. Children were still receiving all lessons at school at that time and it was questioned whether this position was tenable. We systematically compared the benefits and harms of closing primary and secondary schools and developed a recommendation.MethodsA multidisciplinary panel, including school pupils and teachers, educational experts, clinicians and researchers, produced this recommendation in compliance with the standards for trustworthy rapid guidelines. The recommendation is based on data collected through national surveillance or studies from Belgium, and supported by a rapid literature review.ResultsClosing schools during the first lockdown probably resulted in a large learning delay and possibly led to more cases of child abuse. We are uncertain about the effect on the infection rate, hospitalisations, transmission rates, mental health of children, teachers and parents. The panel concluded that the balance of benefits and harms of closing schools clearly shifts against closing schools. Detrimental effects are even worse for vulnerable children. This recommendation is affected by the local virus circulation.ConclusionThe guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is low to moderate, and a weak recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is high. It does not apply when the school system cannot function due to lack of teachers, too many children who are at home or a shortage of support services. As the results of international studies are consistent with Belgian study results, this recommendation may also be relevant internationally.