Guyatt, Gordon

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low‐quality evidence supporting the recommendations. Conclusion This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.

Abstract Background: Guidelines suggest the use of the Khorana score to select patients with solid cancer receiving chemotherapy for thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but its performance in different types of cancers remains uncertain. Methods: The present analysis includes individual patient data from seven randomized controlled trials that had compared prophylactic (ultra)-low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or observation in patients with solid cancer. The analysis addresses the performance of the continuous and dichotomized Khorana score in predicting the 6-month risk of VTE in the trial control groups, overall and in types of cancer studies, as well as the efficacy and safety of LMWH among patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Random effects meta-analysis provided the basis for summary estimates. Findings: In the 3,403 patients from the control groups included in the analyses, the mean age was 61 years, 59% were male, and 58% had lung cancer. During 6-months of follow-up, 188 patients (5.5%) developed VTE. Overall, the 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate risk patients (OR 1.6; 95%-CI 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95%-CI, 0.72-1.7) than in those with other types of cancer (OR 4.4; 95%-CI, 2.7-7.3; P interaction=0.002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared to placebo or observation (OR 0.36; 95%-CI, 0.22-0.58). In the group of patients with types of cancer other than lung cancer and a high-risk Khorana score (N=619), the 6-month VTE incidence was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.7) among LMWH recipients and 13% (95% CI, 6.8 to 24) among those not receiving LMWH (OR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.46; P <0.001). There was no difference in major bleeding (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.5). Interpretation: The Khorana score performs poorly in differentiating between those at high and low risk of VTE in patients with lung cancer, but is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of VTE in those with other types of cancer. Thromboprophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and through a direct anti-tumour effect. Study-level meta-analysis indicates a reduction in VTE and provide moderate certainty that a small survival benefit exists; it is unclear if patients with specific cancers benefit more or less. Utilizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCT), this individual participant data meta-analysis examines the impact of heparin on survival, VTE and major bleeding in oncological patients randomized to low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or no LMWH. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic search for all RCTS (last search date March 2017) and contacted authors and sponsors to obtain individual participant data of patients with solid cancers and no other indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. We utilized the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and produce an evidence profile. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. We calculated the impact on mortality through multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We adjusted the analysis for age, cancer type and metastasis status. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups, including type of cancer, we tested interaction terms in the statistical model. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (n=10,041 participants) were eligible for inclusion and we obtained data from 82.4% of the participants (13 RCTs, n=8,278; n=4,139 for LMWH and n=4,139 for no LMWH). The meta-analysis revealed an adjusted relative risk of mortality within one year of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.03) and a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.14) after one year. The relative risk for VTE was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.71), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.74) for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.77) for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, separately. For every 1,000 patients treated, approximately 16 fewer would experience symptomatic DVT and 16 fewer would experience any PE. The adjusted relative risk for major bleeding throughout trial duration was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.69; P=0.17). Subgroup analysis, by cancer type, of VTE occurrence throughout trial duration identified lung cancer OR=0.52 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.68; P<0.001) and pancreatic cancer OR=0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.88; P=0.01) patients as experiencing the greatest benefit from LMWH treatment. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was moderate to high. Conclusion: LMWH reduces risk of VTE without increasing risk of bleeding but does not improve survival across all patients. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial; Cancer Research UK: Research Funding. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project.

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.

6513 Background: Investigators finding a large treatment effect in an interim analysis may terminate a randomized trial (RCT) earlier than planned. A systematic review (Montori et. al., JAMA 2005; 294: 2203–2209) found that RCTs stopped early for benefit are poorly reported and may overestimate the true treatment affect. The extent to which RCTs in oncology stopped early for benefit share similar concerns remains unclear. Methods: We selected RCTs in oncology which had been reported in the original systematic review and reviewed the study characteristics, features related to the decision to monitor and stop the study early (sample size, interim analyses, monitoring and stopping rules), and the number of events and the estimated treatment effects. Results: We found 29 RCTs in malignant hematology (n=6) and oncology (n=23), 52% published in 2000–2004 and 41% in 3 high-impact medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA). The majority (79%) of trials reported a planned sample size and, on average, recruited 67% of the planned sample size (SD 31%). RCTs reported (1) the planned sample size (n=20), (2) the interim analysis at which the study was terminated (n=16), and (3) whether the decision to stop the study prematurely was informed by a stopping rule (n=16); only 13 reported all three. There was a highly significant correlation between the number of events and the treatment effect (r=0.68, p=0.0007). The odds of finding a large treatment effect (a relative risk < median of 0.54, IQR 0.3–0.7) when studies stopped after a few events (no. events < median of 54 events, IQR 22–125) was 6.2 times greater than when studies stopped later. Conclusions: RCTs in oncology stopped early for benefit tend to report large treatment effects that may overestimate the true treatment effect, particularly when the number of events driving study termination is small. Also, information pertinent to the decision to stop early was inconsistently reported. Clinicians and policymakers should interpret such studies with caution, especially when information about the decision to stop early is not provided and few events occurred. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess and report certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This GRADE concept article is not GRADE guidance but introduces certainty of net benefit, defined as the certainty that the balance between desirable and undesirable health effects is favourable. Determining certainty of net benefit requires considering certainty of effect estimates, the expected importance of outcomes and variability in importance, and the interaction of these concepts. Certainty of net harm is the certainty that the net effect is unfavourable. Guideline panels using or testing this approach might limit strong recommendations to actions with a high certainty of net benefit or against actions with a moderate or high certainty of net harm. Recommendations may differ in direction or strength from that suggested by the certainty of net benefit or harm when influenced by cost, equity, acceptability or feasibility.

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.

Objective This collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons developed an evidence‐based guideline for the perioperative management of antirheumatic drug therapy for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing elective total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee arthroplasty, and methodologists was convened to construct the key clinical questions to be answered in the guideline. A multi‐step systematic literature review was then conducted, from which evidence was synthesized for continuing versus withholding antirheumatic drug therapy and for optimal glucocorticoid management in the perioperative period. A Patient Panel was convened to determine patient values and preferences, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using a group consensus process through a convened Voting Panel of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. The strength of the recommendation reflects the degree of certainty that benefits outweigh harms of the intervention, or vice versa, considering the quality of available evidence and the variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline addresses the perioperative use of antirheumatic drug therapy including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in adults with RA, SpA, JIA, or SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It provides recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications, and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. The guideline includes 7 recommendations, all of which are conditional and based on low‐ or moderate‐quality evidence. Conclusion This guideline should help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative antirheumatic medication management at the time of elective THA or TKA. These conditional recommendations reflect the paucity of high‐quality direct randomized controlled trial data.