Dataset Information

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.

ABSTRACT: The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

SUBMITTER: Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC)

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7924476 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over the recent period, the use of induced hypothermia has gained an increasing interest for critically ill patients, in particular in brain-injured patients. The term "targeted temperature management" (TTM) has now emerged as the most appropriate when referring to interventions used to reach and maintain a specific level temperature for each individual. TTM may be used to prevent fever, to maintain normothermia, or to lower core temperature. This treatment is widely used in intensive care units, mostly as a primary neuroprotective method. Indications are, however, associated with variable levels of evidence based on inhomogeneous or even contradictory literature. Our aim was to conduct a systematic analysis of the published data in order to provide guidelines. We present herein recommendations for the use of TTM in adult and paediatric critically ill patients developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. These guidelines were conducted by a group of experts from the French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française [SRLF]) and the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Francaise d'Anesthésie Réanimation [SFAR]) with the participation of the French Emergency Medicine Association (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence [SFMU]), the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies (Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et Urgences Pédiatriques [GFRUP]), the French National Association of Neuro-Anesthesiology and Critical Care (Association Nationale de Neuro-Anesthésie Réanimation Française [ANARLF]), and the French Neurovascular Society (Société Française Neurovasculaire [SFNV]). Fifteen experts and two coordinators agreed to consider questions concerning TTM and its practical implementation in five clinical situations: cardiac arrest, traumatic brain injury, stroke, other brain injuries, and shock. This resulted in 30 recommendations: 3 recommendations were strong (Grade 1), 13 were weak (Grade 2), and 14 were experts' opinions. After two rounds of rating and various amendments, a strong agreement from voting participants was obtained for all 30 (100%) recommendations, which are exposed in the present article.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial ties between health professionals and industry may unduly influence professional judgments and some researchers have suggested that widening disease definitions may be one driver of over-diagnosis, bringing potentially unnecessary labeling and harm. We aimed to identify guidelines in which disease definitions were changed, to assess whether any proposed changes would increase the numbers of individuals considered to have the disease, whether potential harms of expanding disease definitions were investigated, and the extent of members' industry ties.Methods and findingsWe undertook a cross-sectional study of the most recent publication between 2000 and 2013 from national and international guideline panels making decisions about definitions or diagnostic criteria for common conditions in the United States. We assessed whether proposed changes widened or narrowed disease definitions, rationales offered, mention of potential harms of those changes, and the nature and extent of disclosed ties between members and pharmaceutical or device companies. Of 16 publications on 14 common conditions, ten proposed changes widening and one narrowing definitions. For five, impact was unclear. Widening fell into three categories: creating "pre-disease"; lowering diagnostic thresholds; and proposing earlier or different diagnostic methods. Rationales included standardising diagnostic criteria and new evidence about risks for people previously considered to not have the disease. No publication included rigorous assessment of potential harms of proposed changes. Among 14 panels with disclosures, the average proportion of members with industry ties was 75%. Twelve were chaired by people with ties. For members with ties, the median number of companies to which they had ties was seven. Companies with ties to the highest proportions of members were active in the relevant therapeutic area. Limitations arise from reliance on only disclosed ties, and exclusion of conditions too broad to enable analysis of single panel publications.ConclusionsFor the common conditions studied, a majority of panels proposed changes to disease definitions that increased the number of individuals considered to have the disease, none reported rigorous assessment of potential harms of that widening, and most had a majority of members disclosing financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Dataset Information

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets