The development of the PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People’s Treatments) criteria

BACKGROUND: Whilst multimorbidity is more prevalent with increasing age, approximately 30% of middle-aged adults (45-64 years) are also affected. Several prescribing criteria have been developed to optimise medication use in older people (≥65 years) with little focus on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults. We have developed a set of explicit prescribing criteria called PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments) which may be applied to prescribing datasets to determine the prevalence of PIP in this age-group.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify published prescribing criteria for all age groups, with the Project Steering Group (convened for this study) adding further criteria for consideration, all of which were reviewed for relevance to middle-aged adults. These criteria underwent a two-round Delphi process, using an expert panel consisting of general practitioners, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Using web-based questionnaires, 17 panellists were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each criterion via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to assess the applicability to middle-aged adults in the absence of clinical information. Criteria were accepted/rejected/revised dependent on the panel's level of agreement using the median response/interquartile range and additional comments.

RESULTS: Thirty-four criteria were rated in the first round of this exercise and consensus was achieved on 17 criteria which were accepted into the PROMPT criteria. Consensus was not reached on the remaining 17, and six criteria were removed following a review of the additional comments. The second round of this exercise focused on the remaining 11 criteria, some of which were revised following the first exercise. Five criteria were accepted from the second round, providing a final list of 22 criteria [gastro-intestinal system (n = 3), cardiovascular system (n = 4), respiratory system (n = 4), central nervous system (n = 6), infections (n = 1), endocrine system (n = 1), musculoskeletal system (n = 2), duplicates (n = 1)].

CONCLUSIONS: PROMPT is the first set of prescribing criteria developed for use in middle-aged adults. The utility of these criteria will be tested in future studies using prescribing datasets.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

PURPOSE: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.

METHODS: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.

RESULTS: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.

CONCLUSION: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.

Methodologies for the Development of the Management of Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: This series of guidance documents on cough, which will be published over time, is a hybrid of two processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines and (2) trustworthy consensus statements based on a robust and transparent process.

METHODS: The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee selected a nonconflicted Panel Chair and jointly assembled an international panel of experts in each clinical area with few, if any, conflicts of interest. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-based key questions and parameters of eligibility were developed for each clinical topic to inform the comprehensive literature search. Existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies were assessed for relevance and quality. Data elements were extracted into evidence tables and synthesized to provide summary statistics. These, in turn, are presented to support the evidence-based graded recommendations. A highly structured consensus-based Delphi approach was used to provide expert advice on all guidance statements. Transparency of process was documented.

RESULTS: Evidence-based guideline recommendations and consensus-based suggestions were carefully crafted to provide direction to health-care providers and investigators who treat and/or study patients with cough. Manuscripts and tables summarize the evidence in each clinical area supporting the recommendations and suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS: The resulting guidance statements are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process. Unless otherwise stated, the recommendations and suggestions meet the guidelines for trustworthiness developed by the Institute of Medicine and can be applied with confidence by physicians, nurses, other health-care providers, investigators, and patients.

Development and Application of Medication Appropriateness Indicators for Persons with Advanced Dementia: A Feasibility Study

Background: No studies have been conducted in the UK context to date that categorise medications in terms of appropriateness for patients with advanced dementia, or that examine medication use in these vulnerable patients.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to categorise the appropriateness of a comprehensive list of medications and medication classes for use in patients with advanced dementia; examine the feasibility of conducting a longitudinal prospective cohort study to collect clinical and medication use data; and determine the appropriateness of prescribing for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in Northern Ireland (NI), using the categories developed.

Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus panel survey of expert clinicians was used to categorise the appropriateness of medications for patients with advanced dementia [defined as having Functional Assessment Staging (FAST) scores ranging from 6E to 7F]. This was followed by a longitudinal prospective cohort feasibility study that was conducted in three nursing homes in NI. Clinical and medication use for participating residents with advanced dementia (FAST scores ranging from 6E to 7F) were collected and a short test of dementia severity administered. These data were collected at baseline and every 3 months for up to 9 months or until death. For those residents who died during the study period, data were also collected within 14 days of death. The appropriateness ratings from the consensus panel survey were retrospectively applied to residents’ medication data at each data collection timepoint to determine the appropriateness of medications prescribed for these residents.

Results: Consensus was achieved for 87 (90 %) of the 97 medications and medication classes included in the survey. Fifteen residents were recruited to participate in the longitudinal prospective cohort feasibility study, four of whom died during the data collection period. Mean numbers of medications prescribed per resident were 16.2 at baseline, 19.6 at 3 months, 17.4 at 6 months and 16.1 at 9 months. Fourteen residents at baseline were taking at least one medication considered by the consensus panel to be never appropriate, and approximately 25 % of medications prescribed were considered to be never appropriate. Post-death data collection indicated a decrease in the proportion of never appropriate medications and an increase in the proportion of always appropriate medications for those residents who died.

Conclusions: This study is the first to develop and apply medication appropriateness indicators for patients with advanced dementia in the UK setting. The Delphi consensus panel survey of expert clinicians was a suitable method of developing such indicators. It is feasible to collect information on quality of life, functional performance, physical comfort, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognitive function for this subpopulation of nursing home residents with advanced dementia.

Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review on the management of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough to update the recommendations and suggestions of the 2006 guideline on this topic.

METHODS: We followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on data from the systematic review, patients' values and preferences, and the clinical context. Final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology.

RESULTS: The results of the systematic review revealed only low-quality evidence to support how to define or diagnose psychogenic or habit cough with no validated diagnostic criteria. With respect to treatment, low-quality evidence allowed the committee to only suggest therapy for children believed to have psychogenic cough. Such therapy might consist of nonpharmacologic trials of hypnosis or suggestion therapy, or combinations of reassurance, counseling, and referral to a psychologist, psychotherapy, and appropriate psychotropic medications. Based on multiple resources and contemporary psychologic, psychiatric, and neurologic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and tic disorder guidelines), the committee suggests that the terms psychogenic and habit cough are out of date and inaccurate.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the major change in suggestions is that the terms psychogenic and habit cough be abandoned in favor of somatic cough syndrome and tic cough, respectively, even though the evidence to do so at this time is of low quality.

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.