Citations

Abstract Clinical question What are the benefits and harms of medications for adults with type 2 diabetes at varied risks of cardiovascular and kidney related complications? Context Emerging clinical trials of novel medications have demonstrated benefits on cardiovascular, kidney, and weight related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. Dynamically updated practice guidelines adhering to standards of trustworthiness are necessary in response to a rapidly evolving evidence base and the availability of multiple medication alternatives. This living practice guideline incorporates the latest available medications and evidence and provides recommendations stratified by risks of cardiovascular and kidney complications to inform diabetes management. Recommendations The panel issued risk-stratified recommendations regarding four prioritised medications for adults with type 2 diabetes (SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, finerenone and tirzepatide): • Lower risk (three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD)): weak recommendation against SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. • Moderate risk (more than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD; or established CVD and/or CKD at lower risk of complications): weak recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation against finerenone in adults with CKD. • Higher risk (established CVD and/or CKD at higher risk of complications, or established heart failure): strong recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation in favour of finerenone in adults with CKD. • Across risk strata: weak recommendation in favour of tirzepatide in adults with obesity. About this guideline and how it was created An international panel including two patient partners, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations. The panel followed standards for trustworthy guidelines and used the GRADE approach, explicitly considering the balance of benefits, harms and burdens of treatment from an individual patient perspective. Recommendations were informed by a linked living systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluating relative benefits and harms updated to 31 July 2024; and by linked systematic reviews addressing risk prediction models and values and preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes. Candidate therapeutics are prioritised based on availability of sufficient randomised trial data, relevance to a global audience and likelihood of changing practice. This is the first version of the living guideline. The guideline is part of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations series. MAGICapp displays the most recent version of the guideline and full content including evidence summaries and decision aids; major updates will be published in The BMJ . We encourage re-use, adaptation and translation of these living guidelines, and recognise that the lack of availability or high costs of some medications may be prohibitive and will impact on how these recommendations are implemented across different health care systems.

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.

Abstract Patients who are diagnosed with localized prostate cancer need to make critical treatment decisions that are sensitive to their values and preferences. The role of decision aids in facilitating these decisions is unknown. The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of decision aids for localized prostate cancer. Teams of 2 reviewers independently identified, selected, and abstracted data from 14 eligible trials (n = 3377 men), of which 10 were conducted in North America. Of these, 11 trials compared decision aids with usual care, and 3 trials compared decision aids with other decision aids. Two trials suggested a modest positive impact on decisional regret. Results across studies varied widely for decisional conflict (4 studies), satisfaction with decision (2 studies), and knowledge (2 studies). No impact on treatment choices was observed (6 studies). In conclusion, scant evidence at high risk of bias suggests the variable impact of existing decision aids on a limited set of decisional processes and outcomes. Because current decision aids provide information but do not directly facilitate shared decision making, subsequent efforts would benefit from user‐centered design of decision aids that promote shared decision making. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65: 239–251. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Introduction Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices. Ethics and Dissemination We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).