McDonnell, Marie E.

Abstract Disclosure: D. Segura Torres: None. K. Raygoza: None. M. Garcia: None. J.P. Brito: None. M.E. McDonnell: None. M. Corrigan: None. C.R. McCartney: None. R. Dhaliwal: None. N.M. Singh Ospina: None. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) improve healthcare quality by guiding decision making. Recent trends in CPG development emphasize incorporating race/ethnicity terms and health equity considerations. However, the appropriateness of how race/ethnicity is utilized remains uncertain. Objective This study seeks to evaluate the use of race/ethnicity in published Endocrine Society (ES) CPG and elucidate the context in which race and ethnicity terms are used. Methods: We identified 30 active clinical practice guidelines from ES up to January 2023. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate: a) located statements addressing race/ethnicity using an electronic search with 24 keywords, b) determined the statements' location within guidelines, and c) classified them based on content using frameworks by Cerdena and Gilliam. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Exclusions were made for statements not addressing race and ethnicity terms in the appropriate context (e.g., “minority” of the panel disagreed), as well as for those in references or duplicates. Results: We reviewed 30 clinical practice guidelines, with 19 of them containing statements related to race or ethnicity. After applying exclusion criteria, we identified a final analytic sample of 114 statements. The majority of these statements were found in the body of the clinical guidelines (79%), followed by the evidence-to-decision framework (14%), and clinical recommendations (7%).The predominant classification were statements in which there was biologization of race/ethnicity 55% (n=63). Discussions on racial/ethnic disparities accounted for 23% (n=26) of the statements, with 31% (n=8) of these including explicit considerations of social context. Additionally, there were descriptions of race-specific treatment or diagnosis/screening in 14% (n=16) and 9% (n=10) of the statements, respectively.Less commonly statements of race/ethnicity reflected the consideration of ancestry as a code for race/ethnicity (n=7, 6%), identified ancestry as a risk factor for disease (n=19, 6%), highlighted racial/ethnic groups as understudied n=6, 5%), normalized findings to the majority group (White centeredness) (n=7, 6%), and other categories (7%). None of the statements employed race/ethnicity terms to emphasize cultural humility or the value of inclusivity in guideline committees. Conclusion: We systematically analyzed how race and ethnicity terms are used in ES CPGs. Our findings align with prior assessments made in non-ES CPG, highlighting the prevalent biologization of race and ethnicity constructs. Addressing this trend and incorporating socio-structural context considerations could bolster the impact of clinical guidelines in promoting health equity. Presentation: 6/1/2024

Abstract Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

Abstract Objective This work aims to guide clinicians practicing endocrinology in the use of telehealth (synchronous patient-clinician visits conducted over video or telephone) for outpatient care. Participants The Endocrine Society convened a 9-member panel of US endocrinologists with expertise in telehealth clinical care, telehealth operations, patient-centered care, health care delivery research, and/or evidence-based medicine. Evidence The panel conducted a literature search to identify studies published since 2000 about telehealth in endocrinology. One member extracted a list of factors affecting the quality of endocrine care via telehealth from the extant literature. The panel grouped these factors into 5 domains: clinical, patient, patient-clinician relationship, clinician, and health care setting and technology. Consensus Process For each domain, 2 or 3 members drew on existing literature and their expert opinions to draft a section examining the effect of the domain’s component factors on the appropriateness of telehealth use within endocrine practice. Appropriateness was evaluated in the context of the 6 Institute of Medicine aims for health care quality: patient-centeredness, equity, safety, effectiveness, timeliness, and efficiency. The panel held monthly virtual meetings to discuss and revise each domain. Two members wrote the remaining sections and integrated them with the domains to create the full policy perspective, which was reviewed and revised by all members. Conclusions Telehealth has become a common care modality within endocrinology. This policy perspective summarizes the factors determining telehealth appropriateness in various patient care scenarios. Strategies to increase the quality of telehealth care are offered. More research is needed to develop a robust evidence base for future guideline development.

Abstract In an effort to enhance the trustworthiness of its clinical practice guidelines, the Endocrine Society has recently adopted new policies and more rigorous methodologies for its guideline program. In this Clinical Practice Guideline Communication, we describe these recent enhancements—many of which reflect greater adherence to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to guideline development—in addition to the rationale for such changes. Improvements to the Society’s guideline development practices include, but are not limited to, enhanced inclusion of nonendocrinologist experts, including patient representatives, on guideline development panels; implementation of a more rigorous conflict/duality of interest policy; a requirement that all formal recommendations must be demonstrably underpinned by systematic evidence review; the explicit use of GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks; greater use and explanation of standardized guideline language; and a more intentional approach to guideline updating. Lastly, we describe some of the experiential differences our guideline readers are most likely to notice.

Abstract Background Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management. Objective To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 10 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes. Conclusion The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

Abstract Objective The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in older adults. Conclusions Diabetes, particularly type 2, is becoming more prevalent in the general population, especially in individuals over the age of 65 years. The underlying pathophysiology of the disease in these patients is exacerbated by the direct effects of aging on metabolic regulation. Similarly, aging effects interact with diabetes to accelerate the progression of many common diabetes complications. Each section in this guideline covers all aspects of the etiology and available evidence, primarily from controlled trials, on therapeutic options and outcomes in this population. The goal is to give guidance to practicing health care providers that will benefit patients with diabetes (both type 1 and type 2), paying particular attention to avoiding unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.