OBJECTIVE: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically sound analyses and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions.
METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (ie, guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last 5 years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for using ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naive comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical-effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique used depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins for the secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It is not clear whether variation in real-world practice reflects poor quality-of-care or a balance of outcome tradeoffs across patients. Methods: The study cohort included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized 2007-2008 for AMI. Treatment within 30-days post-discharge was grouped into one of eight possible combinations for the three drug classes. Outcomes included one-year overall survival, one-year cardiovascular-event-free survival, and 90-day adverse events. Treatment effects were estimated using an Instrumental Variables (IV) approach with instruments based on measures of local-area practice style. Pre-specified data elements were abstracted from hospital medical records for a stratified, random sample to create \"unmeasured confounders\" (per claims data) and assess model assumptions. Results: Each drug combination was observed in the final sample (N = 124,695), with 35.7% having all three, and 13.5% having none. Higher rates of guideline-recommended treatment were associated with both better survival and more adverse events. Unmeasured confounders were not associated with instrumental variable values. Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that providers consider both treatment benefits and harms in patients with AMIs. The investigation of estimator assumptions support the validity of the estimates.

暂无摘要。

Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs).
This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs\' EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes.
Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes.
Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics\' ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

BACKGROUND: We designed and initiated a pilot comparative effectiveness study for juvenile localized scleroderma (jLS), for which there is limited evidence on best therapy. We evaluated the process we used, in relation to the specific protocol and to the general task of identifying strategies for implementing studies in rare pediatric diseases.
METHODS: This was a prospective, multi-center, observational cohort study of 50 jLS patients initiating treatment, designed and conducted by the jLS group of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) from 2012 to 2015. A series of virtual and physical meetings were held to design the study, standardize clinical assessments, generate and refine disease activity and damage measures, and monitor the study. Patients were initiated on one of three standardized methotrexate-based treatment regimens (consensus treatment plans, CTPs) and monitored for 1 year. An optional bio-banking sub-study was included.
RESULTS: The target enrollment of 50 patients was achieved over 26 months at 10 sites, with patients enrolled into all CTPs. Enrolled patients were typical for jLS. Study eligibility criteria were found to perform well, capturing patients thought appropriate for treatment studies. Minor modifications to the eligibility criteria, primarily to facilitate recruitment for future studies, were discussed with consensus agreement reached on them by the jLS group. There were marked differences in site preferences for specific CTPs, with half the sites treating all their patients with the same CTP. Most patients (88%) completed the study, and 68% participated in the bio-banking substudy.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach for conducting comparative effectiveness research in a rare pediatric disease. Multi-center collaboration by dedicated investigators who met regularly was a key factor in the success of this project. Other factors that facilitate these studies include having a sufficient number of investigators to enroll in each regimen, and streamlining study approval and management.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is the most common inflammatory myopathy in childhood and a major cause of morbidity among children with pediatric rheumatic diseases. The management of JDM is very heterogeneous. The JDM working group of the Society for Pediatric Rheumatology (GKJR) aims to define consensus- and practice-based strategies in order to harmonize diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of JDM.
METHODS: The JDM working group was established in 2015 consisting of 23 pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric neurologists and dermatologists with expertise in the management of JDM. Current practice patterns of management in JDM had previously been identified via an online survey among pediatric rheumatologists and neurologists. Using a consensus process consisting of online surveys and a face-to-face consensus conference statements were defined regarding the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of JDM. During the conference consensus was achieved via nominal group technique. Voting took place using an electronic audience response system, and at least 80% consensus was required for individual statements.
RESULTS: Overall 10 individual statements were developed, finally reaching a consensus of 92 to 100% regarding (1) establishing a diagnosis, (2) case definitions for the application of the strategies (moderate and severe JDM), (3) initial diagnostic testing, (4) monitoring and documentation, (5) treatment targets within the context of a treat-to-target strategy, (6) supportive therapies, (7) explicit definition of a treat-to-target strategy, (8) various glucocorticoid regimens, including intermittent intravenous methylprednisolone pulse and high-dose oral glucocorticoid therapies with tapering, (9) initial glucocorticoid-sparing therapy and (10) management of refractory disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a consensus process among JDM experts, statements regarding the management of JDM were defined. These statements and the strategies aid in the management of patients with moderate and severe JDM.

Mild-stimulation protocols with in vitro fertilization (IVF) generally aim to use less medication than conventional IVF. This guideline evaluates pregnancy and live-birth rates in patients expected to be poor responders using mild ovarian stimulation and natural-cycle protocols vs conventional IVF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with high risk of systemic thromboembolism leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Warfarin, previously the mainstay for stroke prevention in AF, requires close monitoring because of multiple food and drug interactions. In recent years, food and drug administration has approved several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for use in patients with nonvalvular AF. These agents have not been studied in patients with valvular AF who are at an even higher risk of systemic thromboembolism. DOACs do not require frequent blood testing or changes in dosage except when renal function deteriorates, however, the lack of established antidotes for many of these agents remains a challenge. Also, currently there is no head-to-head comparison between these agents to guide clinical choice. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of currently approved oral antithrombotics in nonvalvular AF, with a special emphasis on the DOACs and their individual characteristics.

The pediatric rheumatic diseases are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases, posing a number of challenges for the use of traditional clinical and translational research methods. Innovative comparative effectiveness approaches are needed to efficiently study treatment strategies and disease outcomes. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed the consensus treatment plan (CTP) approach as a comparative effectiveness tool for research in pediatric rheumatology. CTPs are treatment strategies, developed by consensus methods among CARRA members, intended to reduce variation in treatment approaches, standardize outcome measurements, and allow for comparison of the effectiveness of different approaches with the goal of improving disease outcomes. To date, CTPs have been published for 8 different diseases and disease manifestations. The approach has been successfully piloted for juvenile localized scleroderma, systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), polyarticular JIA, dermatomyositis, and lupus nephritis. Large-scale studies are underway for systemic JIA and polyarticular JIA, with the CARRA patient registry serving as the data collection platform. These studies have been designed with stakeholder involvement, including active input from CARRA providers, patients, and parents, with the goal of increasing feasibility and ensuring the relevance of the outcomes. These studies include ancillary biologic specimen collection intended to support additional translational and mechanistic studies. Data from these ongoing CTP studies will provide more information on the ability of this approach to identify effective treatment strategies and improve outcomes in the pediatric rheumatic diseases.

In March 2014, the American Heart Association updated their guidelines for the management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation, recommending OAC for all patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. Previously, only patients with CHADS2 ≥2 were recommended for anticoagulation. This study compared effectiveness and safety outcomes of OAC among patients who would receive OAC using the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines.
Using claims data from a 5% sample of 2013-2014 Medicare beneficiaries, we identified patients with initially diagnosed atrial fibrillation between 2013 and 2014 and selected those who would receive OAC under the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines (those with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 or CHADS2 score <2). Patients were categorized according to their use of OAC after first atrial fibrillation diagnosis (2937 users and 2914 nonusers). Primary outcomes included the composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism and death, and any bleeding event. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to compare the risk of primary outcomes between the 2 groups, while controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. There was no difference in the combined risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.20). The risk of bleeding was higher for patients receiving OAC than for patients not receiving OAC (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.46-1.97).
The benefit of OAC is not well defined in this patient population, and new studies that minimize residual confounding are needed to fully understand the risk/benefit of OAC in patients with atrial fibrillation and low to moderate stroke risk.