Citations

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.

ObjectiveThis 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Purpose Major cardiovascular complications associated with noncardiac surgery represent a substantial population health problem for which there are no established efficacious and safe prophylactic interventions. Acetyl-salicylic acid (ASA) represents a promising intervention. The objective of this study was to determine surgeons' perioperative usage of ASA, and if they would enrol their patients in a perioperative ASA randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods Cross-sectional survey of all practicing Canadian general, orthopedic, and vascular surgeons. Our mailed, self-administered survey asked surgeons to consider only their patients who were at risk of a major perioperative cardiovascular complication. Results The response rate was 906/1854 (49%). For patients taking ASA chronically, there was marked variability regarding ASA continuation prior to surgery amongst the general and orthopedic surgeons, whereas 76% of vascular surgeons continued ASA in 81-100% of their patients. For patients not taking ASA chronically, approaches to starting ASA prior to surgery were variable amongst the vascular surgeons, whereas 70% of general and 82% of orthopaedic surgeons did not start ASA. For patients taking ASA chronically, 73% of general surgeons, 70% of orthopaedic surgeons, and 36% of vascular surgeons would allow at least 40% of their patients to participate in a perioperative RCT comparing stopping versus continuing ASA. For patients not taking ASA chronically, most general (76%), orthopaedic (67%), and vascular (51%) surgeons would allow at least 40% of their patients to participate in a perioperative RCT comparing starting ASA versus placebo. Conclusion This national survey demonstrates that perioperative ASA usage as reported by surgeons is variable, identifying the need for, and community interest in, a large perioperative ASA trial.