Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

GRADE approach for making recommendations in clinical practice guidelines #wac2015

1,990 views

Published on

My talk during the WAC 2015 in Seoul. What is the GRADE approach, why should we use clinical practice guidelines, how to understand recommendations using GRADE

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Download or read that Ebooks here ... ......................................................................................................................... DOWNLOAD FULL PDF EBOOK here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... Download EPUB Ebook here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... Download Doc Ebook here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................................
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Download or read that Ebooks here ... ......................................................................................................................... DOWNLOAD FULL PDF EBOOK here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... Download EPUB Ebook here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... Download Doc Ebook here { http://bit.ly/2m6jJ5M } ......................................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................................
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

GRADE approach for making recommendations in clinical practice guidelines #wac2015

  1. 1. Carlos A. Cuello Garcia MD, PhD(c) Health Research Methodology Program Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Guideline development Levels of evidence and the GRADE approach
  2. 2. DISCLOSURE • currently working at MacGRADE centre & Cochrane GRADEing group • Cochrane author • I have received support from the WAO for travel / meetings • no other COIs related to this talk GRADEing Methods
  3. 3. OUTLINE • what are clinical practice guidelines? • why should we use them? • what are recommendations and levels of evidence? • how to interpret a CPG recommendation?
  4. 4. ATOPIC DERMATITIS
  5. 5. EASY! PIMECROLIMUS
  6. 6. EASY! PIMECROLIMUS WHAT ABOUT CANCER REPORTED?
  7. 7. WE BETTER STAY WITH TOPICAL CORTICOSTEROIDS
  8. 8. WE BETTER STAY WITH TOPICAL CORTICOSTEROIDS PIMECROLIMUS IS BETTER THAN TCS
  9. 9. ? ??
  10. 10. PIMECROLIMUS OR TOPICAL CORTICOSTEROIDS? Meanwhile, at the Ministry of Health…
  11. 11. CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ๏ statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. IOM · AHRQ 2011
  12. 12. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATION EVIDENCE PATIENT VALUES ACCEPTA- BILITY BENEFITS VS HARMS COSTS IN PATIENTS (CLINICAL) GUIDELINES
  13. 13. DECISION EVIDENCE PATIENT VALUES ACCEPTA- BILITY BENEFITS VS HARMS FEASIBILITY EQUITY RESOURCE USE IN PUBLIC HEALTH GUIDELINES
  14. 14. guidelines we can trust ๏ Based on a systematic review of the existing evidence 1
  15. 15. guidelines we can trust ๏ Developed by a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups 2
  16. 16. guidelines we can trust ๏ Considers important patient subgroups and patient preferences 3
  17. 17. guidelines we can trust ๏ Based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions, biases, and conflicts of interest 4
  18. 18. guidelines we can trust ๏ Provides a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes, and provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations 5
  19. 19. guidelines we can trust ๏ It is revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications of recommendations. 6
  20. 20. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATION or DECISION EVIDENCE PATIENT VALUES ACCEPTA- BILITY BENEFITS VS HARMS FEASIBILITY EQUITY RESOURCE USE
  21. 21. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATION or DECISION EVIDENCE
  22. 22. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING
  23. 23. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING
  24. 24. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING
  25. 25. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING systematic reviews clinical practice guidelines
  26. 26. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING systematic reviews clinical practice guidelines
  27. 27. RESEARCH GENERATION PUBLISHING systematic reviews clinical practice guidelines
  28. 28. CHALLENGES AHEAD why we need trustworthy clinical practice guidelines?
  29. 29. ๏ Every year $100 billion dollars are invested in biomedical research ๏ Only 10% is used to test treatments Chalmers 2009 $
  30. 30. ๏ only half of researchers use a systematic review that has been previously done on their topic Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Lancet 2009;374:86-9 Cooper NJ, et al Clin Trials 2005;2:260–4. 50%
  31. 31. ๏ only half of researchers use adequate tools to ensure the quality of their work Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Lancet 2009;374:86-9 Cooper NJ, et al Clin Trials 2005;2:260–4. CONSORT
  32. 32. ๏ not all research is registered, reported, or published… Cressey D. Secrets of trial data revealed. Nature. 2013 Oct 10;502(7470):154-5 RESEARCH GENERATION
  33. 33. and many times we overlook research priorities and patient important outcomes Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Lancet 2009;374:86-9 Cooper NJ, et al Clin Trials 2005;2:260–4.
  34. 34. 100 participants parachute placebo
  35. 35. 100 participants 36.5 (2.1) 36.7 (1.9) 4.3 (1.2) 6.1(1.3) 25 (3) 22(2.4) Temp ºC –mean (SD) Fear scale –mean (IQR) Serum adrenaline (mcg/dL) – mean (SD) parachute placebo
  36. 36. 100 participants 36.5 (2.1) 36.7 (1.9) 4.3 (1.2) 6.1(1.3) 25 (3) 22(2.4) Temp ºC –mean (SD) Fear scale –mean (IQR) Serum adrenaline (mcg/dL) – mean (SD) p=0.00001 parachute placebo
  37. 37. antiarrhythmics Patients with MI ecainide flecainide placebo ↓ ↓ ↑↑ arrhythmias death ?? Epstein AE, et al. JAMA 1993
  38. 38. outcomes Patients with asthma nitrous oxide placebo O2 sat FEV1 Length of hospital stay Death
  39. 39. so, do you recommend..?
  40. 40. so, do you recommend..? ๏ pimecrolimus or topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis?
  41. 41. so, do you recommend..? ๏ pimecrolimus or topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis? ๏ nitrous oxide for severe asthma?
  42. 42. so, do you recommend..? ๏ pimecrolimus or topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis? ๏ nitrous oxide for severe asthma? ๏ probiotics for allergy prevention?
  43. 43. so, do you recommend..? ๏ pimecrolimus or topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis? ๏ nitrous oxide for severe asthma? ๏ probiotics for allergy prevention? ๏ epinephrine for anaphylactic shock?
  44. 44. expert recommendations cross-sectional case series, case reports case-control cohort Randomized trial Systematic review CTFPHE 1979
  45. 45. expert recommendations cross-sectional case series, case reports case-control cohort Randomized trial Systematic review CTFPHE 1979 I good II fair III poor EVIDENCE
  46. 46. expert recommendations cross-sectional case series, case reports case-control cohort Randomized trial Systematic review CTFPHE 1979 I good II fair III poor EVIDENCE A B C RECOMMENDATION D
  47. 47. I want to jump from this airplane
  48. 48. do you recommend a parachute?
  49. 49. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
  50. 50. expert recommendations cross-sectional case series case-control cohort RCT
  51. 51. cross-sectional case series case-control cohort RCT RCT Observational experience is not evidence, it’s a tool
  52. 52. By default... cross-sectional case series case-control cohort RCT RCT Observational HIGH QUALITY LOW QUALITY
  53. 53. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE ๏ You can also call it: ๏ certainty of evidence ๏ confidence in the estimates Balshem H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-6
  54. 54. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE Balshem H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-6 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation
  55. 55. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE HIGH We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect MODERATE LOW VERY LOW
  56. 56. how is the quality (confidence) of the evidence determined?
  57. 57. what would make you loose confidence? ๏ Overall, probiotics reduced the risk of eczema in infants when given to their pregnant mothers ๏ RR=0.72 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.85) ๏ 3’509 participants, 15 trials
  58. 58. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE risk of bias STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3
  59. 59. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE inconsistencyrisk of bias STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3
  60. 60. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE inconsistency indirectness P I C O ? risk of bias STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3
  61. 61. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE inconsistency indirectness P I C O ? imprecision risk of bias STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3
  62. 62. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE inconsistency indirectness P I C O ? imprecision publication bias risk of bias STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3
  63. 63. By default... cross-sectional case series, etc. case-control cohort RCT RCT Observational HIGH QUALITY LOW QUALITY
  64. 64. By default... RCT Observational HIGH QUALITY LOW QUALITY
  65. 65. RCT HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
  66. 66. RCT HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE risk of bias
  67. 67. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias
  68. 68. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias inconsistency
  69. 69. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias inconsistency imprecision
  70. 70. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias inconsistency imprecision indirectness
  71. 71. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias inconsistency imprecision indirectness publication bias
  72. 72. VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE RCT risk of bias inconsistency imprecision indirectness publication bias
  73. 73. OBSERVATIONAL HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
  74. 74. OBSERVATIONAL HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE strong association
  75. 75. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE OBSERVATIONAL strong association dose response
  76. 76. HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW QUALITY OF EVIDENCE OBSERVATIONAL strong association dose response opposingresidual confounding
  77. 77. HIGH QUALITY OF EVIDENCE OBSERVATIONAL strong association dose response opposingresidual confounding
  78. 78. from evidence to recommendations
  79. 79. Quality of evidence Strength of a recommendation the extent of our confidence that the estimates of an effect are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation the extent to which one can be confident that the desirable consequences of an intervention outweigh its undesirable consequences
  80. 80. NO YES YES NO strengthofarecommendation direction of a recommendation for against
  81. 81. NO YES YES NO strengthofarecommendation direction of a recommendation for against STRONG
  82. 82. NO YES YES NO strengthofarecommendation direction of a recommendation for against CONDITIONAL STRONG
  83. 83. patients clinicians policy makers Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action, and only a small proportion would not Most individuals should receive the intervention. Adherence to this recommendation could be used as a quality criterion or performance indicator The recommendation can be adopted as policy in most situations. STRONG CONDITIONAL The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not Different choices will be appropriate for individual patients. Must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with his or her values and preferences. Policy making will require substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders.
  84. 84. FRAMEWORKS evidence to recommendation
  85. 85. just 4 columns & conclusions
  86. 86. CRITERIA
  87. 87. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility
  88. 88. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
  89. 89. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION what is to be considered?
  90. 90. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION what do we consider about it?
  91. 91. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION what do we consider about it?
  92. 92. CRITERIA Problem Quality of evidence Benefits & harms Values Resource use Equity Acceptability Feasibility JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION based on what evidence?
  93. 93. CONCLUSIONS Balance of consequences Decision /recommendation Justification Implementation considerations Monitoring Evaluation Research priorities
  94. 94. example
  95. 95. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 1 Evidence to decision framework Question 1: Should probiotics vs. no probiotics be used in pregnant women? Population:!pregnant!women! Option:!probiotics! Comparison:!no!probiotics! Setting:3outpatient! Perspective:3individual!patient Background: The$intestinal$microbiome$could$play$an$important$role$in$the$immune$system$maturation,$ and$it$has$been$suggested$that$early6life$probiotic$administration,$whether$directly$to$the$infant$or$in$ their$mothers$breast$milk,$may$reduce$the$risk$of$allergies$in$childhood.$The$objective$of$this$question$is$ to$evaluate$the$impact$of$probiotics$administered$to$the$expecting$mothers$on$their$infant. Subgroup considerations: subpopulation of women at high risk for allergy in a child CRITERIA JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROBLEM Is the problem a priority? No Probably no Uncertain Probably yes Yes X Allergic diseases represent a spectrum of health conditions and a worldwide burden in different populations. (1) Are a large number of people affected? No Probably no Uncertain Probably yes Yes X As many as 40% of the worldwide population is affected by any type of allergy. In infants prevalence depends highly on the allergic status of their parents, being approximately of 10% in those without an allergic parent or sibling, versus 20% to 30% in those with the atopic background in their relatives. (2) Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  96. 96. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 2 CRITERIA JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS VALUES Is there important uncertainty or variability about how much people value the main outcomes? Important uncertainty or variability Possibly important uncertainty or variability Probably no important uncertainty or variability No important uncertainty or variability No known undesirable outcomes X Detailed judgements The relative importance or values of the main outcomes of interest: Outcome Relative importance Certainty of the evidence Eczema critical low Asthma/wheezing critical low Food allergy critical low Adverse effects critical low We judged that the outcomes eczema, asthma and food allergy are critical for people. The adverse outcomes are probably of high importance and the burden of taking daily pills is limited. Some immunocompromised women might not accept the risk. BENEFITS&HARMSOFTHEOPTIONS What is the overall certainty of the evidence of effectiveness? No included studies Very low Low Moderate High X Summary of findings: Outcome With [intervention] Without [intervention] Difference (per 100) (95%CI) Relative effect (RR) (95%CI) Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Eczema (follow-up 1 to 5 years) 365/1520 (24%) 484/1515 (31.9%) 9 fewer per 100 (from 4 fewer to 13 fewer) RR 0.72 (0.6 to 0.86) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Asthma/wheezing (follow-up 2 to 7 years) 143/992 (14.4%) 139/982 (14.2%) 0 fewer per 100 (from 3 fewer to 3 more) RR 0.97 (0.77 to 1.22) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW Food allergy (follow-up 1 to 2 years) 36/279 (12.9%) 41/284 (14.4%) 1 more per 100 (from 3 fewer to 8 more) RR 1.08 (0.73 to 1.59) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Adverse effects 101/394 (25.6%) 88/397 (22.2%) 3 more per 100 (from 4 fewer to 12 more) RR 1.13 (0.82 to 1.52) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Link to detailed evidence profile Subgroup considerations: Link(s) to summary of findings and judgments for subgroups The data are indirect for all outcomes because they are primarily derived from studies that looked at mixed exposure in women during pregnancy and breastfeeding and of infants after birth. Only 1 RCT assessed the effect on eczema in pregnant women only: RR 0.88 (0.63 to 1.22); RD 5 fewer per 100 (from 14 fewer to 9 more) 5 RCTs included pregnant women + later breastfeeding mothers: RR 0.5 (0.4 to 0.63); RD 21 fewer per 100 (from 15 fewer to 25 fewer) 5 RCTs included pregnant women + infants after birth (follow-up 1 to 5 years): RR 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), RD 4 fewer per 100 (from 8 fewer to 1 more) 3 RCTs included pregnant women + subsequently breastfeeding + infants (follow-up 3 to 4 years): RR 0.78 (0.49 to 1.24); RD 7 fewer per 100 (from 17 fewer to 8 more) No effects were observed on asthma/wheezing and food allergy. How substantial are the desirable anticipated effects? Don’t know Not important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Varies X X Detailed judgements There was some disagreement among panel members whether the effect is somewhat or moderately important. How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? Don’t know Very important Moderately important Somewhat important Not important Varies X Detailed judgements No serious adverse effects, and no difference in mild adverse effects between the groups. Do the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects? No Probably No Don’t know Probably Yes Yes Varies X Detailed judgements Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  97. 97. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 2 CRITERIA JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS VALUES Is there important uncertainty or variability about how much people value the main outcomes? Important uncertainty or variability Possibly important uncertainty or variability Probably no important uncertainty or variability No important uncertainty or variability No known undesirable outcomes X Detailed judgements The relative importance or values of the main outcomes of interest: Outcome Relative importance Certainty of the evidence Eczema critical low Asthma/wheezing critical low Food allergy critical low Adverse effects critical low We judged that the outcomes eczema, asthma and food allergy are critical for people. The adverse outcomes are probably of high importance and the burden of taking daily pills is limited. Some immunocompromised women might not accept the risk. BENEFITS&HARMSOFTHEOPTIONS What is the overall certainty of the evidence of effectiveness? No included studies Very low Low Moderate High X Summary of findings: Outcome With [intervention] Without [intervention] Difference (per 100) (95%CI) Relative effect (RR) (95%CI) Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Eczema (follow-up 1 to 5 years) 365/1520 (24%) 484/1515 (31.9%) 9 fewer per 100 (from 4 fewer to 13 fewer) RR 0.72 (0.6 to 0.86) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Asthma/wheezing (follow-up 2 to 7 years) 143/992 (14.4%) 139/982 (14.2%) 0 fewer per 100 (from 3 fewer to 3 more) RR 0.97 (0.77 to 1.22) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW Food allergy (follow-up 1 to 2 years) 36/279 (12.9%) 41/284 (14.4%) 1 more per 100 (from 3 fewer to 8 more) RR 1.08 (0.73 to 1.59) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Adverse effects 101/394 (25.6%) 88/397 (22.2%) 3 more per 100 (from 4 fewer to 12 more) RR 1.13 (0.82 to 1.52) ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW Link to detailed evidence profile Subgroup considerations: Link(s) to summary of findings and judgments for subgroups The data are indirect for all outcomes because they are primarily derived from studies that looked at mixed exposure in women during pregnancy and breastfeeding and of infants after birth. Only 1 RCT assessed the effect on eczema in pregnant women only: RR 0.88 (0.63 to 1.22); RD 5 fewer per 100 (from 14 fewer to 9 more) 5 RCTs included pregnant women + later breastfeeding mothers: RR 0.5 (0.4 to 0.63); RD 21 fewer per 100 (from 15 fewer to 25 fewer) 5 RCTs included pregnant women + infants after birth (follow-up 1 to 5 years): RR 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), RD 4 fewer per 100 (from 8 fewer to 1 more) 3 RCTs included pregnant women + subsequently breastfeeding + infants (follow-up 3 to 4 years): RR 0.78 (0.49 to 1.24); RD 7 fewer per 100 (from 17 fewer to 8 more) No effects were observed on asthma/wheezing and food allergy. How substantial are the desirable anticipated effects? Don’t know Not important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Varies X X Detailed judgements There was some disagreement among panel members whether the effect is somewhat or moderately important. How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? Don’t know Very important Moderately important Somewhat important Not important Varies X Detailed judgements No serious adverse effects, and no difference in mild adverse effects between the groups. Do the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects? No Probably No Don’t know Probably Yes Yes Varies X Detailed judgements Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  98. 98. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 3 CRITERIA JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCEUSE How large are the resource requirements? Large costs Moderate costs Small Moderate savings Large savings Varies X Detailed judgements Prices are likely to vary substantially depending on the setting. This may be a particularly important consideration in low and middle-income countries. A level and type of insurance may play a substantial role as well. From a health systems point of view it might also be cost effective given that probiotic would be used for 9 months and cost of treatment of eczema may be distributed across many years. Extremely limited research evidence (internet searches of drug prices) Bifidobacterium bifidum (cost per person per year US$) Dose: 1 pill each day Lactobacillus gg (cost per person per year US$) 1 pill each day North- America Average $181.16 $341.6 South- America Average $174.3 $286 Europe Average $167.86 $251.56 Fewer office visits would occur as a result of eczema if the effects on eczema were true. How large is the incremental cost relative to the net benefit? Very large ICER Large ICER Moderate ICER Small ICER Savings Varies Detailed judgements No research evidence If eczema was reduced the intervention might be cost- effective given fewer office visits (between $17,400 and $34,100 to treat 100 people for 1 year or ¾ of that for 9 months) preventing 9 cases of eczema. In most studies probiotics were used in the last trimester of pregnancy, which, if used this same way, might reduce the cost per pregnant woman. EQUITY What would be the impact on health inequities? Increased Probably increased Uncertain Probably reduced Reduced Varies X Detailed judgements No research evidence In some settings it may be important to consider equity as the access may depend on socioeconomic status of the country or setting where coverage will depend on policymakers. ACCEPTABILITY Is the option acceptable to key stakeholders? No Probably No Uncertain Probably Yes Yes Varies X Detailed judgements No research evidence Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  99. 99. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 4 CRITERIA JUDGEMENTS RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FEASIBILITY Is the option feasible to implement? No Probably No Uncertain Probably Yes Yes Varies X Detailed judgements No research evidence Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  100. 100. Explanations Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013 Generic EtD framework 5 Recommendation Should probiotics vs. no probiotics be used in pregnant women (exposing their children in utero)? Overall balance of consequences Undesirable consequences clearly outweigh desirable consequences Undesirable consequences probably outweigh desirable consequences The balance of desirable and undesirable consequences indicates they are very similar* Desirable consequences probably outweigh undesirable consequences Desirable consequences clearly outweigh undesirable consequences ! ! ! X ! We recommend against the option or for the alternative We suggest not to use the option or to use the alternative We suggest using the option We recommend the option ! ! X ! Panel decisions 3 panel members with potential COI recused themselves from participating in formulating the recommendation. Consensus was obtained from the rest of the team. Recommendation (text) The guideline panel suggests using probiotics in pregnant women at high risk for allergy in their children (conditional recommendation, very low quality evidence). Remarks and justification Most studies commenced probiotics in the last trimester of pregnancy. The very low quality evidence for adverse effects indicates that our confidence in the absence of increased adverse effects is low. Future research is needed (see definitions of very low quality) e.g., generalizing to immune-compromised children Subgroup considerations Women with high risk of allergy in their children Women with average risk of allergy in their children Implementation considerations This recommendation is based on trials investigating the probiotics or mixtures of probiotic listed below. We have not found a difference between these different probiotics, but that does not mean there is no difference Monitoring and evaluation considerations Research priorities Develop instruments for evaluating the risk of allergy in children as the family history predicts only about 30% of the population risk. There is some evidence that first child is at higher risk for allergy than subsequent children. Long-term follow-up of long-term effects. No direct evidence for the use of probiotics in formula – this should be evaluated in future research and is an unmet need. Prepared by: Holger, Jan, Carlos, Juan Date: December 10, 2013
  101. 101. OUTLINE • what are clinical practice guidelines? • why should we use them? • what are recommendations and levels of evidence? • how to interpret a CPG recommendation?
  102. 102. tools / more readings • guidelinedevelopment.org • cebgrade.mcmaster.ca • gradeing.cochrane.org GRADEing Methods
  103. 103. Thank you! cuelloca@mcmaster.ca @CharlieNeck

×