S'abonner

Levels of evidence supporting drug, device, and other recommendations in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines - 16/08/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.05.003 
Alexander C. Fanaroff, MD, MHS a, , Marat Fudim, MD, MHS b, Robert M. Califf, MD c, Stephan Windecker, MD d, Sidney C. Smith, MD e, Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, MHS b
a Penn Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality and Evaluative Research Center, Leonard Davis Institute, and Cardiovascular Medicine Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 
b Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 
c Verily Life Sciences (Alphabet), South San Francisco, CA, USA 
d Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 
e Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 

Reprint requests: Alexander Fanaroff, MD, MHS, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104.3400 Civic Center BlvdPhiladelphiaPA19104

Background

Clinical guideline documents reflect the evidence supporting clinical practice, but few recommendations in cardiovascular guidelines are supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the highest level of evidence. Incentives for generating evidence from RCTs differ by topic of guideline recommendation, and it is uncertain whether evidence supporting guideline recommendations differs based on the topic of the recommendation.

Methods

We abstracted recommendation statements from current ACC/AHA guideline documents (2008–2019). Two reviewers independently characterized each statement into categories based on its primary topic: pharmaceutical, device, non-invasive or minimally invasive therapeutic procedure, surgery, diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, laboratory, care strategies, health services or policy, history/physical examination, lifestyle or counseling. We determined the number and proportion of recommendations in each category characterized as level of evidence (LOE) A (supported by multiple RCTs), B (supported by a single RCT or observational data), and C (supported by expert opinion or limited data).

Results

Of 2934 recommendations from 29 clinical guideline documents, 784 (26.7%) were primarily about pharmaceuticals, 503 (17.1%) diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, 366 (12.5%) devices, 349 (11.9%) care strategies, 274 (9.3%) surgery, 216 (7.4%) therapeutic procedures, 162 (5.5%) lifestyle interventions or counseling, 160 (5.5%) health services, care delivery, or policy, 83 (2.8%) laboratory, and 37 (1.3%) elements of the history and physical. Across all recommendations, 257 (8.8%) were characterized as LOE A, with considerable variability by topic. 25.9% of lifestyle/counseling recommendations, 16.9% of lab recommendations, and 14.7% of drug recommendations were classified as LOE A, but <8% of recommendations in all other categories, including 5.5% of device recommendations, 6.0% of therapeutic procedure recommendations, 2.6% of surgery recommendations, and 5.0% of health services or policy recommendations.

Conclusion

Less than 10% of current ACC/AHA guideline recommendations are supported by high quality evidence from RCTs, with substantial variability by topic and multiple areas with very few recommendations supported by high-quality evidence. Development and implementation of inexpensive methods for generating a higher volume of RCT evidence to support clinical practice are needed, especially in areas where there are not strong incentives to conduct RCTs.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2020  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 226

P. 4-12 - août 2020 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Transcatheter InterAtrial Shunt Device for the treatment of heart failure: Rationale and design of the pivotal randomized trial to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure II (REDUCE LAP-HF II)
  • Natalia Berry, Laura Mauri, Ted Feldman, Jan Komtebedde, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Scott D. Solomon, Joseph M. Massaro, Sanjiv J. Shah
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Outcomes and cost among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure assigned to accountable care organizations
  • Nancy Luo, Bradley G. Hammill, Adam D. DeVore, Haolin Xu, Gregg C. Fonarow, Nancy M. Albert, Roland A. Matsouaka, Adrian F. Hernandez, Clyde Yancy, Robert J. Mentz

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.