Back to Authors

Brignardello‐Petersen, Romina

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6010-9900

Mayo Clinic

McMaster University

Citations 13

Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma
Rayner, Daniel , Ferri, Dario , Guyatt, Gordon H, Brignardello‐Petersen, Romina , Foroutan, Farid , Chipps, Bradley E. , Perry, Tamara T. , Oppenheimer, John , Israel, Elliot, Hoyte, Flavia, Rivera‐Spoljaric, Katherine , McCabe, Ellen , Rangel, Susana, Shade, Lindsay , Hall, Lisa , Sue-Wah-Sing, Dia, Melendez, Angel , Orr, H. C., Winders, Tonya , Gardner, Donna D. , Przywara, Kathyrn, Rank, Matthew A. , Chu, Derek K. , Foroutan, Farid , Chu, Derek K , O’Byrne, Paul M. , Sumino, Kaharu , Nyenhuis, Sharmilee Maria , Israel, Elliot , Hoyte, Flavia Cecilia Lega , Press, Valerie G. , Hall, Lisa, Orr, Hilarry, Przywara, Kathyrn, Bacharier, Leonard B. , Mosnaim, Giselle S

JAMA | October 28, 2024 | Volume: 333 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 143

10.1001/jama.2024.22700 Get It

Importance The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data Sources The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], −10.3% [95% CI, −11.8% to −8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, −4.7% [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, −5.5% [95% CI, −8.4% to −2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, −0.6% [95% CI, −1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and Relevance In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.
American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults
Abel, Gregory A. , Altman, Jessica K. , Buckstein, Rena , Choe, Hannah , Erba, Harry P. , Hourigan, Christopher S. , LeBlanc, Thomas W. , Litzow, Mark R. , MacEachern, Janet , Michaelis, Laura C. , O’Dwyer, Kristen M. , Rosko, Ashley , Stone, Richard M. , Agarwal, Arnav , Colunga‐Lozano, Luis Enrique , Brignardello‐Petersen, Romina , Agarwal, Arnav , Erba, Harry Paul , Hourigan, Christopher S , Leblanc, Thomas , Colunga-Lozano, Luis E , Sekeres, Mikkael A. , Guyatt, Gordon , Alibhai, Shabbir M.H. , Desai, Pinkal , Mukherjee, Sudipto , O'Dwyer, Kristin , Chang, Yaping , Hao, Qiukui

Blood Advances | August 6, 2020 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 3528-3549

10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001920 Get It

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.
UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey
Agoritsas, Thomas , Merglen, Arnaud , Heen, Anja Fog , Kristiansen, Annette, Neumann, Ignacio , Brito, Juan P. , Brignardello‐Petersen, Romina , Alexander, Paul , Rind, David M., Vandvik, Per Olav , Guyatt, Gordon , Brito, Juan P

BMJ Open | November 16, 2017 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 11 | Pages: e018593

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018593 Get It

Introduction UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified. Objectives Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations. Design Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate. Methods We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate. Results UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation. Conclusion The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations—in UpToDate and elsewhere—when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.