BACKGROUND: Treatment goals have been established in Australia to facilitate the management of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. The Australasian College of Dermatologists sought to determine if and how these adult treatment goals could be modified to accommodate the needs of paediatric and adolescent patients.
METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. Comprehensive literature review and guideline evaluation resulted in the development of statements and other questions to establish current clinical practices. Two rounds of anonymous voting were undertaken, with a collaborative meeting held in between to discuss areas of discordance. Overall, consensus was defined as achievement of ≥75% agreement in the range 7-9 on a 9-point scale (1 strongly disagree; 9 strongly agree).
RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 23/29 statements in round 1 and 17/18 statements in round 2. There was a high level of concordance with treatment criteria in the adult setting. The limitations of applying assessment tools developed for use in adult patients to the paediatric setting were highlighted. Treatment targets in the paediatric setting should include objective metrics for disease severity and psychological impact on the patients and their family, and be based on validated, age-appropriate tools.
CONCLUSIONS: While the assessment, classification and management of moderate to severe psoriasis in paediatric patients aligns with metrics established for adults, it is vital that nuances in the transition from childhood to adolescence be taken into account. Future research should focus on psoriasis severity assessment scales specific to the paediatric setting.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the treatment landscape for moderate-severe psoriasis has rapidly evolved. The Australasian College of Dermatologists sought to review and update previously published treatment goals for moderate-severe psoriasis.
METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. Comprehensive literature review and guideline evaluation resulted in the development of statements and other questions to establish current clinical practices. Two rounds of anonymous voting were undertaken, with a collaborative meeting held in between to discuss areas of discordance. Overall, consensus was defined as achievement of ≥75% agreement in the range 7-9 on a 9-point scale (1 strongly disagree; 9 strongly agree).
RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 26/29 statements in round 1 and a further 20 statements in round 2. There was strong agreement to expanding the classification/definition of psoriasis severity by including a choice of metrics, incorporating quality of life measures, and widening the scope of high-impact sites. Consensus was also reached on revised treatment response criteria, which were then incorporated into a new treatment algorithm. There was discordance with the current requirement to undertake a trial with established systemic agents before accessing targeted therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability of new targeted treatment options to change the narrative in psoriasis patient care can only be properly realised if challenges to timely and equitable access are addressed. The proposed framework for the assessment, classification and management of moderate-severe psoriasis aligns with international recommendations. Its adoption into Australian clinical practice is hoped to improve treatment outcomes and patients\' satisfaction with their care.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, life-threatening genetic disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of subcutaneous or submucosal angioedema. The ultimate goals of treatment for HAE remain ill-defined.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Delphi process was to define the goals of HAE treatment and to examine which factors should be considered when assessing disease control and normalization of the patient\'s life.
METHODS: The Delphi panel comprised 23 participants who were selected based on involvement with scientific research on HAE or coauthorship of the most recent update and revision of the World Allergy Organization/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline on HAE. The process comprised 3 rounds of voting. The final round aimed to aggregate the opinions of the expert panel and to achieve consensus.
RESULTS: Two direct consensus questions were posed in round 2, based on the responses received in round 1, and the panel agreed that the goals of treatment are to achieve total control of the disease and to normalize the patient\'s life. For the third round of voting, 21 statements were considered, with the participants reaching consensus on 18. It is clear from the wide-ranging consensus statements that the burdens of disease and treatment should be considered when assessing disease control and normalization of patients\' lives.
CONCLUSIONS: The ultimate goal for HAE treatment is to achieve no angioedema attacks. The availability of improved treatments and disease management over the last decade now makes complete control of HAE a realistic possibility for most patients.

The inconsistency in outcomes reported and lack of patient-reported outcomes across trials in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) limits shared decision making. As part of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG)-Kids initiative, we aimed to generate a consensus-based prioritized list of critically important outcomes to be reported in all trials in children with CKD.
An online 2-round Delphi survey in English, French, and Hindi languages.
Patients (aged 8-21 years), caregivers/family, and health care professionals (HCPs) rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale.
We assessed the absolute and relative importance of outcomes. Comments were analyzed thematically.
557 participants (72 [13%] patients, 132 [24%] caregivers, and 353 [63%] HCPs) from 48 countries completed round 1 and 312 (56%) participants (28 [40%] patients, 64 [46%] caregivers, and 220 [56%] HCPs) completed round 2. Five outcomes were common in the top 10 for each group: mortality, kidney function, life participation, blood pressure, and infection. Caregivers and HCPs rated cardiovascular disease higher than patients. Patients gave lower ratings to all outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs except they rated life participation (round 2 mean difference, 0.1), academic performance (0.1), mobility (0.4), and ability to travel (0.4) higher than caregivers and rated ability to travel (0.4) higher than HCPs. We identified 3 themes: alleviating disease and treatment burden, focusing on the whole child, and resolving fluctuating and conflicting goals.
Most participants completed the survey in English.
Mortality, life participation, kidney function, and blood pressure were consistently highly prioritized by patients, caregivers, and HCPs. Patients gave higher priority to some lifestyle-related outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs. Establishing critically important outcomes for all trials in children with CKD may improve consistent reporting of survival, kidney health, and clinical and life impact outcomes that are meaningful for decision making.

Despite the advances in diabetes management, people with diabetes are not reaching their target glycemic goals. Healthcare professionals often fail to initiate, escalate, or de-intensify therapy when indicated. There are several organizations that provide guidance on the management of diabetes to assist the practitioner in achieving improved glycemic control, and this can cause confusion to the practitioner on which organizations\' guidance to follow. Diabetes mellitus is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, and there have been studies that suggest some antidiabetic medications increase cardiovascular risk and some reduce cardiovascular risk. Diabetes organizations recommend the individualization of treatment goals and choices of drug therapy that will be safe and effective. Healthcare professionals should be knowledgeable and equipped to decide on the best treatment regimen for each of their patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and be familiar with how to utilize the different organizations\' philosophies in treating their patients.

To estimate the proportion of patients with a recent myocardial infarction (MI) who would be eligible for additional lipid-lowering therapy according to the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias, and to simulate the effects of expanded lipid-lowering therapy on attainment of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target as recommended by the guidelines.
Using the nationwide SWEDEHEART register, we included 25 466 patients who had attended a follow-up visit 6-10 weeks after an MI event, 2013-17. While most patients (86.6%) were receiving high-intensity statins, 82.9% of the patients would be eligible for expanded lipid-lowering therapy, as they had not attained the target of an LDL-C level of <1.4 mmol and a ≥50% LDL-C level reduction. When maximized use of high-intensity statins followed by add-on therapy with ezetimibe was simulated using a Monte Carlo model, the LDL-C target was reached in 19.9% using high-intensity statin monotherapy and in another 28.5% with high-intensity statins and ezetimibe, while 50.7% would still be eligible for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. When use of alirocumab or evolocumab was simulated in those who were eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors, around 90% of all patients attained the LDL-C target.
Our study suggests that, even with maximized use of high-intensity statins and ezetimibe, around half of patients with MI would be eligible for treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors according to the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Considering the current cost of PCSK9 inhibitors, the financial implications of the new guidelines may be substantial.

Consensus-orientated Delphi studies are increasingly used in various areas of medical research using a variety of different rating scales and criteria for reaching consensus. We explored the influence of using three different rating scales and different consensus criteria on the results for reaching consensus and assessed the test-retest reliability of these scales within a study aimed at identification of global treatment goals for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
We conducted a two-stage study consisting of two surveys and consecutively included patients scheduled for TKA from five German hospitals. Patients were asked to rate 19 potential treatment goals on different rating scales (three-point, five-point, nine-point). Surveys were conducted within a 2 week period prior to TKA, order of questions (scales and treatment goals) was randomized.
Eighty patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years; 70% females) completed both surveys. Different rating scales (three-point, five-point and nine-point rating scale) lead to different consensus despite moderate to high correlation between rating scales (r = 0.65 to 0.74). Final consensus was highly influenced by the choice of rating scale with 14 (three-point), 6 (five-point), 15 (nine-point) out of 19 treatment goals reaching the pre-defined 75% consensus threshold. The number of goals reaching consensus also highly varied between rating scales for other consensus thresholds. Overall, concordance differed between the three-point (percent agreement [p] = 88.5%, weighted kappa [k] = 0.63), five-point (p = 75.3%, k = 0.47) and nine-point scale (p = 67.8%, k = 0.78).
This study provides evidence that consensus depends on the rating scale and consensus threshold within one population. The test-retest reliability of the three rating scales investigated differs substantially between individual treatment goals. This variation in reliability can become a potential source of bias in consensus studies. In our setting aimed at capturing patients\' treatment goals for TKA, the three-point scale proves to be the most reasonable choice, as its translation into the clinical context is the most straightforward among the scales. Researchers conducting Delphi studies should be aware that final consensus is substantially influenced by the choice of rating scale and consensus criteria.

Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) should be delivered in a personalized, mechanism- and goal-oriented manner on the basis of an individual case conception. To the authors\' knowledge, a practical instrument for planning IMPT does not exist. The model and guideline presented here for treatment should help practitioners to optimize the planning of IMPT and execute it efficiently. Based on the relevant interference mechanisms, goals for change and treatment are set and possible interventions are proposed. This involves explicitly including the patient\'s existing resources.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data regarding the attainment of lipid-lowering treatment goals according to the recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. The aim of the present study was to assess how applicable these 2013 recommendations are in the setting of an Outpatient University Hospital Lipid Clinic.
METHODS: This was a retrospective (from 1999 to 2013) observational study including 1000 consecutive adults treated for hyperlipidemia and followed up for ≥3 years. Comparisons for the applicability of current European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) and recent ACC/AHA guidelines were performed.
RESULTS: Achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets set by ESC/EAS were 21%, 44% and 62% among patients at very high, high and moderate cardiovascular risk, respectively, receiving statin monotherapy. Among individuals on high-intensity statins only 47% achieved the anticipated ≥50% LDL-C reduction, i.e. the ACC/AHA target. The corresponding rate was significantly greater among those on statin + ezetimibe (76%, p < 0.05). Likewise, higher rates of LDL-C target attainment according to ESC/EAS guidelines were observed in patients on statin + ezetimibe compared with statin monotherapy (37, 50 and 71% for the three risk groups, p < 0.05 for the very high risk group).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of the ACC/AHA guidelines may be associated with undertreatment of high risk patients due to suboptimal LDL-C response to high-intensity statins in clinical practice. Adding ezetimibe substantially increases the rate of the ESC/EAS LDL-C target achievement together with the rate of LDL-C lowering response suggested by the ACC/AHA.

The European Guidelines on Dyslipidaemias (2011) and Cardiovascular Prevention (2012) have incorporated important changes. Firstly, it highlights the identification of a group of \"very high risk\" patients: patients with atherosclerotic disease in any vascular area, diabetes with associated risk factors, advanced chronic renal failure, or a SCORE estimate >10%. Patients with diabetes and no other risk factors, moderate renal failure, severe hypertension, genetic dyslipidaemias, or a SCORE estimate 5-10%, are considered as \"high risk\". The HDL cholesterol and triglycerides levels are considered as modulators of risks, but not therapeutic objectives per se. The therapeutic objectives are set at LDL cholesterol levels < 70 mg/dl (or at least a reduction of at least 50%) for patients at very high risk, and an LDL < 100 mg/dl for high risk patients. As well as the changes in lifestyle, pharmacological treatment with statins is the focal point of lipid lowering treatments. Other pharmacological options may be considered if the treatment with the maximum tolerable doses of statins do not achieve the therapeutic objectives.