Management of Hyperphosphataemia in Chronic Kidney Disease:Summary of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline

Bone disease and ectopic calcification are the two main consequences of hyperphosphataemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Observational studies have demonstrated that hyperphosphataemia in CKD is associated with increased mortality. Furthermore, the use of phosphate binders in dialysis patients is associated with significantly lower mortality. The UK Renal Registry data show significant underachievement of phosphate targets in dialysis patients. It is believed to be due to wide variation in how management interventions are used. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has developed a guideline on the management of hyperphosphataemia in CKD. This is based on the evidence currently available using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This review outlines the recommendations including research recommendations and discusses methodology, rationale and challenges faced in developing this guideline and the health economic model used to assess the cost-effectiveness of different phosphate binders. © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Developing a Reporting Guideline for Social and Psychological Intervention Trials

Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them; however, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this article, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SPI (an extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study).

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.

Inappropriate prescribing of combination inhalers in Northern Ireland: retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of prescribing practice in primary care

BACKGROUND: Asthma management guidelines advocate a stepwise approach to asthma therapy, including the addition of a long-acting bronchodilator to inhaled steroid therapy at step 3. This is almost exclusively prescribed as inhaled combination therapy.

AIMS: To examine whether asthma prescribing practice for inhaled combination therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA)) in primary care in Northern Ireland is in line with national asthma management guidelines.

METHODS: Using data from the Northern Ireland Enhanced Prescribing Database, we examined initiation of ICS/LABA in subjects aged 5-35 years in 2010.

RESULTS: A total of 2,640 subjects (67%) had no inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy (ICS) in the study year or six months of the preceding year (lead-in period) and, extending this to a 12-month lead-in period, 52% had no prior ICS. 41% of first prescriptions for ICS/LABA were dispensed in January to March. Prior to ICS/LABA prescription, in the previous six months only 17% had a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) dispensed, 5% received oral steroids, and 17% received an antibiotic.

CONCLUSIONS: ICS/LABA therapy was initiated in the majority of young subjects with asthma without prior inhaled steroid therapy. Most prescriptions were initiated in the January to March period. However, the prescribing of ICS/LABA did not appear to be driven by asthma symptoms (17% received SABA in the previous 6 months) or severe asthma exacerbation (only 5% received oral steroids). Significant reductions in ICS/LABA, with associated cost savings, would occur if the asthma prescribing guidelines were followed in primary care.

Assessment of Intervention Fidelity and Recommendations for Researchers Conducting Studies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Cough in the Adult: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting intervention fidelity as an important methodologic consideration in assessing the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines used for the diagnosis and management of chronic cough. We developed and used a tool to assess for five areas of intervention fidelity. Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1998 to May 2014. Guideline recommendations and suggestions for those conducting research using guidelines or protocols to diagnose and manage chronic cough in the adult were developed and voted upon using CHEST Organization methodology.

RESULTS: A total of 23 studies (17 uncontrolled prospective observational, two randomized controlled, and four retrospective observational) met our inclusion criteria. These articles included 3,636 patients. Data could not be pooled for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. Findings related to the five areas of intervention fidelity included three areas primarily related to the provider and two primarily related to the patients. In the area of study design, 11 of 23 studies appeared to be underpinned by a single guideline/protocol; for training of providers, two of 23 studies reported training, and zero of 23 reported the use of an intervention manual; and for the area of delivery of treatment, when assessing the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, three of 23 studies appeared consistent with the most recent guideline/protocol referenced by the authors. For receipt of treatment, zero of 23 studies mentioned measuring concordance of patient-interventionist understanding of the treatment recommended, and zero of 23 mentioned measuring enactment of treatment, with three of 23 measuring side effects and two of 23 measuring adherence. The overall average intervention fidelity score for all 23 studies was poor (20.74 out of 48).

CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence supports that intervention fidelity strategies were used when conducting primary research in diagnosing and managing chronic cough in adults. This supports the contention that some of the variability in the reporting of patients with unexplained or unresolved chronic cough may be due to lack of intervention fidelity. By following the recommendations and suggestions in this article, researchers will likely be better able to incorporate strategies to address intervention fidelity, thereby strengthening the validity and generalizability of their results that provide the basis for the development of trustworthy guidelines.