Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

Diagnosis and management in Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome:first international consensus statement

Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome (RTS) is an archetypical genetic syndrome that is characterised by intellectual disability, well-defined facial features, distal limb anomalies and atypical growth, among numerous other signs and symptoms. It is caused by variants in either of two genes (CREBBP, EP300) which encode for the proteins CBP and p300, which both have a function in transcription regulation and histone acetylation. As a group of international experts and national support groups dedicated to the syndrome, we realised that marked heterogeneity currently exists in clinical and molecular diagnostic approaches and care practices in various parts of the world. Here, we outline a series of recommendations that document the consensus of a group of international experts on clinical diagnostic criteria for types of RTS (RTS1: CREBBP; RTS2: EP300), molecular investigations, long-term management of various particular physical and behavioural issues and care planning. The recommendations as presented here will need to be evaluated for improvements to allow for continued optimisation of diagnostics and care.</p

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p&lt;0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (&lt;1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (&lt;1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Diagnosis and management in Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome: first international consensus statement

Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome (RTS) is an archetypical genetic syndrome that is characterised by intellectual disability, well-defined facial features, distal limb anomalies and atypical growth, among numerous other signs and symptoms. It is caused by variants in either of two genes (CREBBP, EP300) which encode for the proteins CBP and p300, which both have a function in transcription regulation and histone acetylation. As a group of international experts and national support groups dedicated to the syndrome, we realised that marked heterogeneity currently exists in clinical and molecular diagnostic approaches and care practices in various parts of the world. Here, we outline a series of recommendations that document the consensus of a group of international experts on clinical diagnostic criteria for types of RTS (RTS1: CREBBP; RTS2: EP300), molecular investigations, long-term management of various particular physical and behavioural issues and care planning. The recommendations as presented here will need to be evaluated for improvements to allow for continued optimisation of diagnostics and care

Can a CME Case Conference Series Create a Community of Practice in a Group of Hospitalist Physicians?

Objective/Purpose: To develop and describe a community of practice amongst a group of hospitalist physicians through a longitudinal structured continuing medical education (CME) activity. Need for Innovation: National studies which were confirmed by local survey, reveal that adult medicine hospitalists have reported feelings of isolation, poor socialization with limited forums to collaborate and learn together as colleagues (e.g., structured case discussions, morbidity and mortality conferences). They struggle with clinical and teaching workloads and the stress of keeping up-to-date. CME has been the traditional mechanism to support continuous learning, yet there is limited data regarding the impact of CME case conference on physicians’ socialization and isolation. Instructional Methods/Materials Used: A CME approved case conference series for Internal Medicine hospitalists was designed using Communities of Practice principles and Harden’s CRISIS criteria for effective CME (making participation voluntary, choosing topics relevant to their role in the workplace, encouraging peer-to peer learning, scheduling the program). The hospital leadership was approached for resources to support a CME endeavor, and they provided administrative support for CME documentation, along with a meeting space and refreshments. The 1-hour clinical conference series was scheduled every two months and selected clinical cases are presented by a hospitalist. A case is selected on the basis of its rare presentation, complicated diagnosis or challenging management. The presenter, through a powerpoint discussion, provides the group with the session’s educational objectives, followed by the presentation of the patient, and poses clinical questions at strategic points. An open format for discussion allows attendees to offer their opinions, ask questions and reflect on each others’ experiences. Educational Outcomes: Attendees complete an end of session evaluation to gauge their reaction. In future events, we will gather narratives from attendees with regards to their changes in behavior a few months following the session. We have had five sessions since November 2015. Some examples of presented cases are management of atypical chest pain and approach to severe hyponatremia. Narrative comments on a post conference anonymous survey indicated participants valued ‘prompted audience participation’, ‘the discussion and debate to improve practice based on evidence based guidelines’. Despite potential scheduling challenges, each session has had at least 8 participants (75% of this hospitalist group). Strengths/Areas for Improvement: Our CME series helps fill the void of professional isolation and provides a collegial peer-to-peer learning opportunity that community hospitalists seem to value. Since it is situated in social learning and communities of practice, the case conference accommodates practitioners of varying levels of experience in shared learning from each another. Moreover, this program is not resource intensive. Since we have had 5 sessions in the past year, we hope to expand our audience to hospitalists and specialists from other facilities in other health care systems (which lack structured local CME activities). Feasibility of Program Maintenance/Transferability: With leadership support, we propose that a program such as ours, grounded in social learning theory, is reproducible in comparative settings. Although designed keeping the unique characteristics of hospitalist physicians in mind, it can be replicated in other settings where physicians do not necessarily meet each other on a regular professional basis such as primary care. In addition, physicians working in shift-based specialties such as critical care and emergency medicine will likely find value in engaging in this form of community of practic