What Confidence Should We Have in Grade?

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives: Confidence (or belief) that a therapy is effective is essential to practicing clinical medicine. GRADE, a popular framework for developing clinical recommendations, provides a means for assigning how much confidence one should have in a therapy's effect estimate. One's level of confidence (or “degree of belief”) can also be modelled using Bayes theorem. In this paper, we look through both a GRADE and Bayesian lens to examine how one determines confidence in the effect estimate. Methods: Philosophical examination. Results: The GRADE framework uses a criteria‐based method to assign a quality of evidence level. The criteria pertain mostly to considerations of methodological rigour, derived from a modified evidence‐based medicine evidence hierarchy. The four levels of quality relate to the level of confidence one should have in the effect estimate. The Bayesian framework is not bound by a predetermined set of criteria. Bayes theorem shows how a rational agent adjusts confidence (ie, degree of belief) in the effect estimate on the basis of the available evidence. Such adjustments relate to the principles of incremental confirmation and evidence proportionism. Use of the Bayesian framework reveals some potential pitfalls in GRADE's criteria‐based thinking on confidence that are out of step with our intuitions on evidence. Conclusions: A rational thinker uses all available evidence to formulate beliefs. The GRADE criteria seem to suggest that we discard some of that information when other, more favoured information (eg, derived from clinical trials) is available. The GRADE framework should strive to ensure that the whole evidence base is considered when determining confidence in the effect estimate. The incremental value of such evidence on determining confidence in the effect estimate should be assigned in a manner that is theoretically or empirically justified, such that confidence is proportional to the evidence, both for and against it

Interpreting Risk as Evidence of Causality: Lessons Learned from a Legal Case to Determine Medical Malpractice

Translating risk estimates derived from epidemiologic study into evidence of causality for a particular patient is problematic. The difficulty of this process is not unique to the medical context; rather, courts are also challenged with the task of using risk estimates to infer evidence of cause in particular cases. Thus, an examination of how this is done in a legal context might provide insight into when and how it is appropriate to use risk information as evidence of cause in a medical context. A careful study of the case of Goodman v. Viljoen, a medical malpractice suit litigated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2011, reveals different approaches to how risk information is used as or might be considered a substitute for evidence of causation, and the pitfalls associated with these approaches. Achieving statistical thresholds, specifically minimizing the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, and exceeding a relative risk of 2, plays a significant role in establishing causality of the particular in the legal setting. However, providing a reasonable explanation or establishing “biological plausibility” of the causal association also seems important, and (to some) may even take precedent over statistical thresholds for a given context

Going from Evidence to Recommendations: Can GRADE Get Us There?

The evidence based medicine movement has championed the need for objective and transparent methods of clinical guideline development. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was developed for that purpose. Central to this framework is criteria for assessing the quality of evidence from clinical studies and the impact that body of evidence should have on our confidence in the clinical effectiveness of a therapy under examination. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation has been adopted by a number of professional medical societies and organizations as a means for orienting the development of clinical guidelines. As a result, the method of GRADE has implications on how health care is delivered and patient outcomes. In this paper, we reveal several issues with the underlying logic of GRADE that warrant further discussion. First, the definitions of the “grades of evidence” provided by GRADE, while explicit, are functionally vague. Second, the “criteria for assigning grade of evidence” is seemingly arbitrary and arguably logically incoherent. Finally, the GRADE method is unclear on how to integrate evidence grades with other important factors, such as patient preferences, and trade‐offs between costs, benefits, and harms when proposing a clinical practice recommendation. Much of the GRADE method requires judgement on the part of the user, making it unclear as to how the framework reduces bias in recommendations or makes them more transparent—both goals of the programme. It is our view that the issues presented in this paper undermine GRADE's justificatory scheme, thereby limiting the usefulness of GRADE as a tool for developing clinical recommendations

Changing paradigm in the treatment of amyloidosis: From disease-modifying drugs to anti-fibril therapy.

Cardiac amyloidosis is a rare, debilitating, and usually fatal disease increasingly recognized in clinical practice despite patients presenting with non-specific symptoms of cardiomyopathy. The current standard of care (SoC) focuses on preventing further amyloid formation and deposition, either with anti-plasma cell dyscrasia (anti-PCD) therapies in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis or stabilizers of transthyretin (TTR) in transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR). The SoC is supplemented by therapies to treat the complications arising from organ dysfunction; for example, heart failure, arrhythmia, and proteinuria. Advancements in treatments have improved patient survival, especially for those whose disease is detected and for whom treatment is initiated at an early stage. However, there still are many unmet medical needs, particularly for patients with severe disease for whom morbidity and mortality remain high. There currently are no approved treatments to reverse amyloid infiltration and deplete the amyloid fibrils already deposited in organs, which can continue to cause progressive dysfunction. Anti-fibril therapies aimed at removing the deposited fibrils are being investigated for safety and efficacy in improving outcomes for patients with severe disease. However, there is no clinical evidence yet that removing deposited amyloid fibrils will improve organ function, thereby improving quality of life or extending life. Nevertheless, anti-fibril therapies are actively being investigated in clinical trials to evaluate their ability to complement and synergize with current SoC.This manuscript was funded by Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.S

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: results from the 65 country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Cross-Sectional Study (INCAPS)

AIMS To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing 'best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight 'best practices' relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more 'best practices' had lower EDs. CONCLUSION Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: results from the 65 country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Cross-Sectional Study (INCAPS)

Aims To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing ‘best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. Methods and results We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight ‘best practices' relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more ‘best practices' had lower EDs. Conclusion Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globall

Comparison of heart team vs interventional cardiologist recommendations for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

Abstract: Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, setting, and participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main outcomes and measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial