GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society

Patient data meta-analysis of Post-Authorization Safety Surveillance (PASS) studies of haemophilia A patients treated with rAHF-PFM

A Post-Authorization Safety Study (PASS) global program was designed to assess safety and effectiveness of rAHF-PFM (ADVATE) use in haemophilia patients in routine clinical settings. The main aim of this project was to estimate the rate of inhibitors and other adverse events across ADVATE-PASS studies by meta-analysing individual patient data (IPD). Eligible Studies: PASS studies conducted in different countries, between 2003 and 2013, for which IPD were provided. Eligible patients: haemophilia A patients with baseline FVIII:C\ua0 150 EDs. Secondary outcomes: de novo inhibitors according to prior exposure and disease severity; other adverse events; annualized bleeding rate (ABR). Analysis: random-effects logistic regression. Five of seven registered ADVATE-PASS (Australia, Europe, Japan, Italy and USA) and 1188 patients were included (median follow-up 384\ua0days). Among severe PTPs with > 150 EDs, 1/669 developed de novo inhibitors (1.5 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2, 10.6 per 1000). Among all patients included in the PASS studies, 21 developed any type of inhibitors (2.0%, 95% CI: 0.8%, 4.7%). Less than 1% of patients presented with other serious adverse events possibly related to ADVATE. The overall median ABR was 3.83 bleeds/year (first, third quartiles: 0.60, 12.90); 1.66 (0, 4.78) in the 557 patients continuously on prophylaxis 65 twice/week. Meta-analysing PASS data from different countries confirmed the overall favourable safety and effectiveness profile of ADVATE in routine clinical settings