First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease with a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation, we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and improve treatment decisions. Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was formed by 8 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based on the expert's experience and the available literature. After extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day panel meeting. Median and disagreement were used to categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate. Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in 13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n=64) or refractory (n=33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n=72) or extensive (n=48) colitis, severe colitis (n=36), steroid-dependant colitis (n=36), steroid-refractory colitis (n=55), acute pouchitis (n=96), maintenance of remission (n=248), colorectal cancer prevention (n=9) and fulminant colitis (n=9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%), 129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement between experts was very low (6%). Conclusion: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch).

First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease with a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation, we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and improve treatment decisions. Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was formed by 7 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based on the expert's experience and the available literature. After extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day panel meeting. Median and disagreement (D) were used to categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate (A), uncertain (U) and inappropriate (I). Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in 13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n = 64) or refractory (n = 33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n = 72) or extensive (n = 48) colitis, severe colitis (n = 36), steroid- dependant colitis (n = 36), steroid-refractory colitis (n = 55), acute pouchitis (n = 96), maintenance of remission (n = 248), colorectal cancer prevention (n = 9) and fulminant colitis (n = 9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%), 129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement between experts was very low (6%). Conclusions: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch)

Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria?

BACKGROUND: Increasing the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is important to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This study explored whether detailed explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for upper GI endoscopy at 6 centers (1 university hospital, 2 district hospitals, 3 gastroenterology practices) were prospectively included over a 6-month period. After controlling for disease presentation and patient characteristics, the relationship between the appropriateness of upper GI endoscopy, as assessed by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method, and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2088 patients (60% outpatients, 57% men) were included. Analysis was restricted to the 1681 patients referred for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. Forty-six percent of upper GI endoscopies were judged to be appropriate, 15% uncertain, and 39% inappropriate by the explicit criteria. No cancer was found in upper GI endoscopies judged to be inappropriate. Upper GI endoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions (60%) than did those judged to be inappropriate (37%; odds ratio 2.6: 95% CI [2.2, 3.2]). In multivariate analyses, the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and age, treatment setting, and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Upper GI endoscopies performed for appropriate indications resulted in detecting significantly more clinically relevant lesions than did those performed for inappropriate indications. In addition, no upper GI endoscopy that resulted in a diagnosis of cancer was judged to be inappropriate. The use of such criteria improves patient selection for upper GI endoscopy and can thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41).

Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective data describing the appropriateness of use of colonoscopy based on detailed panel-based clinical criteria are not available. METHODS: In a cohort of 553 consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy to two university-based Swiss outpatient clinics, the percentage of patients who underwent colonoscopy for appropriate, equivocal, and inappropriate indications and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was prospectively assessed. This assessment was based on criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and explicit American and Swiss criteria developed in 1994 by a formal panel process using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. RESULTS: The procedures were rated appropriate or equivocal in 72.2% by criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in 68.5% by explicit American criteria, and in 74.4% by explicit Swiss criteria (not statistically significant, NS). Inappropriate use (overuse) of colonoscopy was found in 27.8%, 31.5%, and 25.6%, respectively (NS). The proportion of appropriate procedures was higher with increasing age. Almost all reasons for using colonoscopy could be assessed by the two explicit criteria sets, whereas 28.4% of reasons for using colonoscopy could not be evaluated by the criteria of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (p < 0.0001). The probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion was distinctly higher in the procedures rated appropriate or equivocal than in procedures judged inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy is substantial in Switzerland. Explicit criteria allow assessment of almost all indications encountered in clinical practice. In this study, all sets of appropriateness criteria significantly enhanced the probability of finding a relevant endoscopic lesion during colonoscopy.

STOPP/START Criteria and Their Role as a Clinical Tool in Routine Practice

Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria was first published in 2008, primarily as an alternative set of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) to Beers criteria.

A study in cross-cultural transmission of natural philosophy: the Kenkon Bensetsu

Dissertação apresentada para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Doutor em História dos Descobrimentos e da Expansão Portuguesa

Still in the Era of Area Studies? Political-Scientific Perspectives on European Competition Policy in the 2000s

This note reviews the political-scientific literature on European competition policy (ECP) in the 2000s. Based on a data set extracted from four well-known journals, and using an upfront methodology and explicit criteria, it analyzes the literature both quantitatively and qualitatively. On the quantitative side, it shows that, although a few sub-policy areas are still neglected, ECP is not the under-researched policy it used to be. On the qualitative side, the literature has greatly improved since the 1990s: Almost all articles now present a clear research question, and most advance specific theoretical claims/hypotheses. Yet, improvements can be made on research design, statistical testing, and, above all, state-of-the-art theorizing (e.g. in the game-theoretical treatment of delegation problems). Indeed, it is paradoxical that ECP specialists do not pay more attention to theoretical questions which are so central to the actual policy area they study.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy. RESULTS: Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used. CONCLUSIONS: Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.

Appropriateness of therapy for active Crohn's disease: results of a multidisciplinary international Expert Panel (EPACT II)

INTRODUCTION: The development of novel therapies and the increasing number of trials testing management strategies for luminal Crohn's disease (CD) have not filled all the gaps in our knowledge. Thus, in clinical practice, many decisions for CD patients need to be taken without high quality evidence. For this reason, a multidisciplinary European expert panel followed the RAND method to develop explicit criteria for the management of individual patients with active, steroid-dependent (ST-D) and steroid-refractory (ST-R) CD. AIMS & METHODS: Twelve international experts convened in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2007, to rate explicit clinical scenarios, corresponding to real daily practice, on a 9-point scale according to the literature evidence and their own expertise. Median ratings were stratified into three categories: appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6) and inappropriate (1-3). RESULTS: Overall, panelists rated 296 indications pertaining to mild-to-moderate, severe, ST-D, and ST-R CD. In anti-TNF naïve patients, budesonide and prednisone were found appropriate for mild-moderate CD, and infliximab (IFX) when those had previously failed or had not been tolerated. In patients with prior success with IFX, this drug with or without co-administration of a thiopurine analog was favored. Other anti-TNFs were appropriate in case of intolerance or resistance to IFX. High doses steroids, IFX or adalimumab were appropriate in severe active CD. Among 105 indications for ST-D or ST-R disease, the panel considered appropriate the thiopurine analogs, methotrexate, IFX, adalimumab and surgery for limited resection, depending on the outcome of prior therapies. Anti-TNFs were generally considered appropriate in ST-R. CONCLUSION: Steroids, including budesonide for mild-to-moderate CD, remain first-line therapies in active luminal CD. Anti-TNFs, in particular IFX with respect to the amount of available evidence, remain second-line for most indications. Thiopurine analogs are preferred to anti-TNFs when steroids are not appropriate, except when anti-TNFs were previously successful. These recommendations are available online (www.epact.ch). A prospective evaluation of these criteria in a large database in Switzerland in underway to validate these criteria.

Protocol of the COSMIN study: consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments

Background: Choosing an adequate measurement instrument depends on the proposed use of the instrument, the concept to be measured, the measurement properties (e.g. internal consistency, reproducibility, content and construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretability), the requirements, the burden for subjects, and costs of the available instruments. As far as measurement properties are concerned, there are no sufficiently specific standards for the evaluation of measurement properties of instruments to measure health status, and also no explicit criteria for what constitutes good measurement properties. In this paper we describe the protocol for the COSMIN study, the objective of which is to develop a checklist that contains COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, including explicit criteria for satisfying these standards. We will focus on evaluative health related patient-reported outcomes (HR-PROs), i.e. patient-reported health measurement instruments used in a longitudinal design as an outcome measure, excluding health care related PROs, such as satisfaction with care or adherence. The COSMIN standards will be made available in the form of an easily applicable checklist.Method: An international Delphi study will be performed to reach consensus on which and how measurement properties should be assessed, and on criteria for good measurement properties. Two sources of input will be used for the Delphi study: (1) a systematic review of properties, standards and criteria of measurement properties found in systematic reviews of measurement instruments, and (2) an additional literature search of methodological articles presenting a comprehensive checklist of standards and criteria. The Delphi study will consist of four (written) Delphi rounds, with approximately 30 expert panel members with different backgrounds in clinical medicine, biostatistics, psychology, and epidemiology. The final checklist will subsequently be field-tested by assessing the inter-rater reproducibility of the checklist.Discussion: Since the study will mainly be anonymous, problems that are commonly encountered in face-to-face group meetings, such as the dominance of certain persons in the communication process, will be avoided. By performing a Delphi study and involving many experts, the likelihood that the checklist will have sufficient credibility to be accepted and implemented will increase.

Appropriateness of therapy for active Crohn's disease: results of a multidisciplinary international expert panel (EPACT II)

Introduction: The development of novel therapies and the increasing number of trials testing management strategies for luminal Crohn's disease (CD) have not filled all the gaps in our knowledge. Thus, in clinical practice, many decisions for CD patients need to be taken without high quality evidence. For this reason, a multidisciplinary European expert panel followed the RAND method to develop explicit criteria for the management of individual patients with active, steroid-dependent (ST-D) and steroid-refractory (ST-R) CD. Methods: Twelve international experts convened in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2007, to rate explicit clinical scenarios, corresponding to real daily practice, on a 9-point scale according to the literature evidence and their own expertise. Median ratings were stratified into three categories: appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6) and inappropriate (1-3). Results: Overall, panelists rated 296 indications pertaining to mild-to-moderate, severe, ST-D, and ST-R CD. In anti-TNF naïve patients, budesonide and prednisone were found appropriate for mildmoderate CD, and infliximab (IFX) when those had previously failed or had not been tolerated. In patients with prior success with IFX, this drug with or without co-administration of a thiopurine analog was favored. Other anti-TNFs were appropriate in case of intolerance or resistance to IFX. High doses steroids, IFX or adalimumab were appropriate in severe active CD. Among 105 indications for ST-D or ST-R disease, the panel considered appropriate the thiopurine analogs, methotrexate, IFX, adalimumab and surgery for limited resection, depending on the outcome of prior therapies. Anti-TNFs were generally considered appropriate in ST-R. Conclusion: Steroids, including budesonide for mild-to-moderate CD, remain first-line therapies in active luminal CD. Anti-TNFs, in particular IFX with respect to the amount of available evidence, remain second-line for most indications. Thiopurine analogs are preferred to anti-TNFs when steroids are not appropriate, except when anti-TNFs were previously successful. These recommendations are available online (www.epact.ch). A prospective evaluation of these criteria in a large database in Switzerland in underway to validate these criteria.

Appropriateness of therapy for active Crohn's disease: results of a multidisciplinary International Expert Panel (EPACT II)

Introduction: The development of novel therapies and the increasing number of trials testing management strategies for luminal Crohn's disease (CD) have not filled all the gaps in our knowledge. Thus, in clinical practice, many decisions for CD patients need to be taken without high quality evidence. For this reason, a multidisciplinary European expert panel followed the RAND method to develop explicit criteria for the management of individual patients with active, steroid-dependent (ST-D) and steroid-refractory (ST-R) CD. Methods: Twelve international experts convened in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2007, to rate explicit clinical scenarios, corresponding to real daily practice, on a 9-point scale according to the literature evidence and their own expertise. Median ratings were stratified into three categories: appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6) and inappropriate (1-3). Results: Overall, panelists rated 296 indications pertaining to mild-to-moderate, severe, ST-D, and ST-R CD. In anti-TNF naïve patients, budesonide and prednisone were found appropriate for mildmoderate CD, and infliximab (IFX) when those had previously failed or had not been tolerated. In patients with prior success with IFX, this drug with or without co-administration of a thiopurine analog was favored. Other anti-TNFs were appropriate in case of intolerance or resistance to IFX. High doses steroids, IFX or adalimumab were appropriate in severe active CD. Among 105 indications for ST-D or ST-R disease, the panel considered appropriate the thiopurine analogs, methotrexate, IFX, adalimumab and surgery for limited resection, depending on the outcome of prior therapies. Anti-TNFs were generally considered appropriate in ST-R. Conclusion: Steroids, including budesonide for mild-to-moderate CD, remain first-line therapies in active luminal CD. Anti-TNFs, in particular IFX with respect to the amount of available evidence, remain second-line for most indications. Thiopurine analogs are preferred to anti-TNFs when steroids are not appropriate, except when anti-TNFs were previously successful. These recommendations are available online (www.epact.ch). A prospective evaluation of these criteria in a large database in Switzerland in underway to validate these criteria.

Appropriateness of therapy for active Crohn's disease: results of a multidisciplinary international expert panel-EPACT II

The increasing number of trials testing management strategies for luminal Crohn's disease (CD) has not fitted all the gaps in our knowledge and thus, in clinical. practice, many decisions for CD patients have to be taken without the benefit of high-quality evidence. Methods: A multidisciplinary European expert panel used the RAND Appropriateness Method to develop and rate explicit criteria for the management of individual patients with active, steroid-dependent (ST-D) and steroid-refractory (ST-R) CD. Results: Overall., 296 indications pertaining to mild-to-moderate, severe, ST-D, and ST-R CD were rated. In anti-TNF naive patients, budesonide and prednisone were found to be appropriate for mild-moderate CD, and infliximab (IFX) was appropriate when these had previously failed or had not been tolerated. In patients with a prior successful treatment by IFX, this drug, with or without co-administration of a thiopurine analog, was favoured. Other anti-TNFs were appropriate in the presence of intolerance or resistance to IFX. High-dose steroids, IFX or adlimumab were appropriate in severe active CD. For the 105 indications for ST-D or ST-R disease, the panel considered the thiopurine analogs, methotrexate, IFX, adalimumab, and surgery for limited resection, to be appropriate, depending on the outcome of prior therapies. Anti-TNFs were generally considered appropriate in ST-R. Conclusion: Steroids, including budesonide for mild-to-moderate CD, remain the first-line therapy for active luminal CD. Anti-TNFs, in particular IFX as shown by the amount of available evidence, remain the second-line therapy for most indications. Thiopurine analogs, methotrexate and anti-TNFs are favoured in ST-D patients and ST-R patients. (C) 2009 European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Évaluation d'une structure gériatrique entre l'ambulatoire et l'hospitalier [Geriatric institutions, between ambulatory and hospital care: patients' description and performance assessment].

Introduction : Décrire les patients d'une structure gériatrique offrant des hospitalisations de courte durée, dans un contexte ambulatoire, pour des situations gériatriques courantes dans le canton de Genève (Suisse). Mesurer les performances de cette structure en termes de qualité des soins et de coûts. Méthodes : Des données relatives au profil des 100 premiers patients ont été collectées (huit mois), ainsi qu'aux prestations, aux ressources et aux effets (réadmissions, décès, satisfaction, complications) de manière à mesurer différents indicateurs de qualité et de coûts. Les valeurs observées ont été systématiquement comparées aux valeurs attendues, calculées à partir du profil des patients. Résultats : Des critères d'admission ont été fixés pour exclure les situations dans lesquelles d'autres structures offrent des soins mieux adaptés. La spécificité de cette structure intermédiaire a été d'assurer une continuité des soins et d'organiser d'emblée le retour à domicile par des prestations de liaison ambulatoire. La faible occurrence des réadmissions potentiellement évitables, une bonne satisfaction des patients, l'absence de décès prématurés et le faible nombre de complications suggèrent que les soins médicaux et infirmiers ont été délivrés avec une bonne qualité. Le coût s'est révélé nettement plus économique que des séjours hospitaliers après ajustement pour la lourdeur des cas. Conclusion : L'expérience-pilote a démontré la faisabilité et l'utilité d'une unité d'hébergement et d'hospitalisation de court séjour en toute sécurité. Le suivi du patient par le médecin traitant assure une continuité des soins et évite la perte d'information lors des transitions ainsi que les examens non pertinents. INTRODUCTION: To describe patients admitted to a geriatric institution, providing short-term hospitalizations in the context of ambulatory care in the canton of Geneva. To measure the performances of this structure in terms of quality ofcare and costs. METHOD: Data related to the clinical,functioning and participation profiles of the first 100 patients were collected. Data related to effects (readmission, deaths, satisfaction, complications), services and resources were also documented over an 8-month period to measure various quality and costindicators. Observed values were systematically compared to expected values, adjusted for case mix. RESULTS: Explicit criteria were proposed to focus on the suitable patients, excluding situations in which other structures were considered to be more appropriate. The specificity of this intermediate structure was to immediately organize, upon discharge, outpatient services at home. The low rate of potentially avoidable readmissions, the high patient satisfaction scores, the absence of premature death and the low number of iatrogenic complications suggest that medical and nursing care delivered reflect a good quality of services. The cost was significantly lower than expected, after adjusting for case mix. CONCLUSION: The pilot experience showed that a short-stay hospitalization unit was feasible with acceptable security conditions. The attending physician's knowledge of the patients allowed this system tofocus on essential issues without proposing inappropriate services.