Physicians found an interactive tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons understandable and useful: A qualitative user-testing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and improve MATCH-IT - a digital, interactive decision support tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons - to help physicians interpret and apply evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) for their clinical decision-making. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a qualitative user-testing study, applying principles from user centred design in an iterative development process. We recruited a convenience sample of practicing physicians in Norway, Belgium and Canada, and asked them to interpret structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons - linked to clinical guideline recommendations - displayed in MATCH-IT. User-testing included (a) introduction of a clinical scenario, (b) a think aloud session with participant-tool-interaction and (c) a semi-structured interview. We video recorded, transcribed, and analysed user-tests using directed content analysis. The results informed new updates in MATCH-IT. RESULTS: Distributed across five development cycles we tested MATCH-IT with 26 physicians. Of these, 24 (94%) reported either no or sparse prior experience with interpretation of NMA. Physicians perceived MATCH-IT as easy to interpret, navigate and appreciated its ability to provide an overview of the evidence. Visualization of effects in pictograms and inclusion of information on burden of treatment ("practical issues") were highlighted as potentially useful features in interacting with patients. We also identified problems, including undiscovered functionalities (drag and drop), suboptimal tutorial, and cumbersome navigation of the tool. In addition, physicians wanted definition/explanation of key terms (e.g., outcomes and "certainty") and there were concerns that overwhelming evidence from a large NMA would complicate applicability to clinical practice. This led to several updates with development of a new start page, tutorial, updated user-interface for more efficient manoeuvring, solutions to display definition of key terms and a FAQ section. To facilitate interpretation of large networks, we improved categorization of results using colour coding and added filtering functionality. These modifications allowed physicians to focus on interventions of interest and reduce information overload. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides proof of concept that physicians can use MATCH-IT to understand NMA evidence. Key features of MATCH-IT in a clinical context include providing an overview of the evidence, visualization of effects and the display of information on burden of treatments. However, unfamiliarity with GRADE concepts, time constraints and accessibility at the point of care may be challenges for use. To what extent our results are transferable to real-world clinical contexts remains to be explored.

Patients' experience on pain outcomes after hip arthroplasty: insights from an information tool based on registry data.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries are rarely used to inform encounters between clinician and patient. This study is part of a larger one which aimed to develop an information tool allowing both to benefit from previous patients' experience after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study focuses on generating the information tool specifically for pain outcomes. METHODS: Data from the Geneva Arthroplasty Registry (GAR) about patients receiving a primary elective THA between 1996 and 2019 was used. Selected outcomes were identified from patient and surgeon surveys: pain walking, climbing stairs, night pain, pain interference, and pain medication. Clusters of patients with homogeneous outcomes at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively were generated based on selected predictors evaluated preoperatively using conditional inference trees (CITs). RESULTS: Data from 6,836 THAs were analysed and 14 CITs generated with 17 predictors found significant (p < 0.05). Baseline WOMAC pain score, SF-12 self-rated health (SRH), number of comorbidities, SF-12 mental component score, and body mass index (BMI) were the most common predictors. Outcome levels varied markedly by clusters whilst predictors changed at different time points for the same outcome. For example, 79% of patients with good to excellent SRH and less than moderate preoperative night pain reported absence of night pain at 1 year after THA; in contrast, for those with fair/poor SHR this figure was 50%. Also, clusters of patients with homogeneous levels of night pain at 1 year were generated based on SRH, Charnley, WOMAC night and pain scores, whilst those at 10 years were based on BMI alone. CONCLUSIONS: The information tool generated under this study can provide prospective patients and clinicians with valuable and understandable information about the experiences of "patients like them" regarding their pain outcomes.

[For which patients do the latest lipid lowering treatments reduce cardiovascular events?] / Pour quels patients les nouveaux traitements hypolipémiants réduisent-ils les événements cardiovasculaires ?

Dyslipidemia is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Recommendations are based on achieving LDL-C target levels, but it is essential to assess the benefits of intensifying lipid-lowering therapy in terms of absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events across different risk groups. Current data on the absolute benefits of the latest lipid-lowering treatments are more limited in comparison with statins. A recent analysis showed that adding a second lipid-lowering treatment only reduces the absolute cardiovascular risk in patients at very high and high cardiovascular risk, without a substantial benefit in patients at moderate or low cardiovascular risk, as mentioned in the recent recommendations free of conflict of interest and published in the British Medical Journal.

La dyslipidémie est un facteur de risque modifiable des maladies cardiovasculaires. Les recommandations sont basées sur l'atteinte de valeurs cibles du LDL-C mais il est essentiel d'évaluer les avantages de l'intensification du traitement hypolipémiant en termes de réduction du risque absolu d'événements cardiovasculaires dans les différents groupes à risque. Les données actuelles sur le bénéfice des nouveaux traitements hypolipémiants sont plus limitées comparées aux statines. Une analyse récente a montré que l'addition d'un second traitement hypolipémiant réduit le risque cardiovasculaire (CV) absolu uniquement chez les patients avec un risque CV très élevé ou élevé, sans bénéfice absolu substantiel chez les patients à risque CV modéré ou faible, ce qui a été repris des recommandations internationales sans conflit d'intérêts dans le British Medical Journal.

[Selected novelties for hospital based internal medicine]. / Nouveautés en médecine interne hospitalière.

In this selective overview of articles, we describe new concepts, therapeutic measures and pharmacological agents that may modify current practice in clinical internal medicine. Novelties for the management of cardiovascular disease, such as heart failure, hypoxemic respiratory failure, nosocomial pneumonia and certain allergies are discussed.

À travers quelques articles et études choisis, cet article décrit de nouveaux concepts, mesures thérapeutiques et agents pharmacologiques pouvant modifier les pratiques courantes en médecine interne. Des notions concernant la gestion de maladies cardiovasculaires telles que l'insuffisance cardiaque, les décompensations respiratoires hypoxémiques, les pneumonies nosocomiales et la gestion d'allergies y figurent au premier plan.

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial. RESULTS: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty. CONCLUSION: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).

Infographic summaries for clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: Infographics have the potential to enhance knowledge translation and implementation of clinical practice guidelines at the point of care. They can provide a synoptic view of recommendations, their rationale and supporting evidence. They should be understandable and easy to use. Little evaluation of these infographics regarding user experience has taken place. We explored general practitioners' experiences with five selected BMJ Rapid Recommendation infographics suited for primary care. METHODS: An iterative, qualitative user testing design was applied on two consecutive groups of 10 general practitioners for five selected infographics. The physicians used the infographics before clinical encounters and we performed hybrid think-aloud interviews afterwards. 20 interviews were analysed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. RESULTS: Many clinicians reported that the infographics were simple and rewarding to use, time-efficient and easy to understand. They were perceived as innovative and their knowledge basis as trustworthy and supportive for decision-making. The interactive, expandable format was preferred over a static version as general practitioners focused mainly on the core message. Rapid access through the electronic health record was highly desirable. The main issues were about the use of complex scales and terminology. Understanding terminology related to evidence appraisal as well as the interpretation of statistics and unfamiliar scales remained difficult, despite the infographics. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners perceive infographics as useful tools for guideline translation and implementation in primary care. They offer information in an enjoyable and user friendly format and are used mainly for rapid, tailored and just in time information retrieval. We recommend future infographic producers to provide information as concise as possible, carefully define the core message and explore ways to enhance the understandability of statistics and difficult concepts related to evidence appraisal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: MP011977.

[Less is more, Choosing wisely, Smarter medicine : perspectives and issues]. / Less is more, Choosing wisely, Smarter medicine : enjeux et perspectives.

The « Choosing Wisely ¼ initiative aims to reduce overtreatment by issuing specific lists of recommendations. These campaigns have spread around the world over the last ten years, including in Switzerland, under the brand « Smarter Medicine ¼. The methodology used by different medical societies to issue these recommendations remains heterogeneous and heavily consensus-based and could benefit from a better synergy with the recent development of Evidence-Based Medicine and GRADE. Patient partnership, and reflections regarding economic and sustainability issues represent future avenues to enhance the potential impacts of such campaigns.

Le mouvement « Choosing Wisely ¼ a comme objectif de lutter contre la surmédicalisation via le développement de listes de recommandations. La dernière décennie a vu ce mouvement se diffuser à travers le monde, y compris en Suisse sous le nom de « Smarter Medicine ¼. La méthodologie avec laquelle ces recommandations sont élaborées par les sociétés savantes reste hétérogène et fortement basée sur le consensus, et pourrait bénéficier d'une meilleure synergie avec les développements de l'« Evidence-Based Medicine ¼ et de GRADE. Le partenariat avec les patients et les réflexions quant aux enjeux économiques et de durabilité sont autant de perspectives d'évolution de ces mouvements, afin de renforcer leurs impacts.

[Management of gout in the inpatient setting]. / Prise en charge hospitalière de la goutte.

Gout is a common complication occurring among inpatients, as factors affecting urate levels in blood and tissues are often modified by acute conditions. The control of chronic uricemia within recommended target values helps reduce the risk of flares. Joint aspiration is the gold standard for diagnosis, but ultrasound and dual-energy CT scan are reasonable alternatives. Acute and chronic treatments do not differ from those provided in outpatient care, although the increased prevalence of organ failures often require treatment adjustments. Active patient engagement, including therapeutic education during hospitalization, is essential for long-term disease control.

Lors d'un séjour hospitalier, les facteurs impactant la concentration sanguine et tissulaire d'urate sont souvent modifiés, augmentant le risque d'une crise de goutte. Le maintien de l'uricémie dans les cibles reconnues grâce à la poursuite des traitements contribue à réduire ce risque. La ponction articulaire est la méthode de référence pour établir le diagnostic, mais l'ultrason et le scanner à double énergie sont des alternatives fiables pour diagnostiquer une goutte. Les traitements aigu et chronique ne diffèrent pas de ceux pratiqués en ambulatoire, mais la fréquence augmentée d'insuffisances d'organes peut nécessiter l'adaptation des traitements. Pour assurer un contrôle de la maladie sur le long terme, il est essentiel d'impliquer le patient dans sa prise en charge, notamment par l'éducation thérapeutique dispensée pendant l'hospitalisation.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data. RESULTS: We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Encounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care. METHODS: We applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis. RESULTS: Direct observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and harms of drug treatments for adults with type 2 diabetes, adding non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (including finerenone) and tirzepatide (a dual glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist) to previously existing treatment options. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central up to 14 October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Eligible randomised controlled trials compared drugs of interest in adults with type 2 diabetes. Eligible trials had a follow-up of 24 weeks or longer. Trials systematically comparing combinations of more than one drug treatment class with no drug, subgroup analyses of randomised controlled trials, and non-English language studies were deemed ineligible. Certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The analysis identified 816 trials with 471 038 patients, together evaluating 13 different drug classes; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with standard treatments. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.94; high certainty) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (0.88, 0.82 to 0.93; high certainty) reduce all cause death; non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, so far tested only with finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease, probably reduce mortality (0.89, 0.79 to 1.00; moderate certainty); other drugs may not. The study confirmed the benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, admission to hospital for heart failure, and end stage kidney disease. Finerenone probably reduces admissions to hospital for heart failure and end stage kidney disease, and possibly cardiovascular death. Only GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce non-fatal stroke; SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to other drugs in reducing end stage kidney disease. GLP-1 receptor agonists and probably SGLT-2 inhibitors and tirzepatide improve quality of life. Reported harms were largely specific to drug class (eg, genital infections with SGLT-2 inhibitors, severe gastrointestinal adverse events with tirzepatide and GLP-1 receptor agonists, hyperkalaemia leading to admission to hospital with finerenone). Tirzepatide probably results in the largest reduction in body weight (mean difference -8.57 kg; moderate certainty). Basal insulin (mean difference 2.15 kg; moderate certainty) and thiazolidinediones (mean difference 2.81 kg; moderate certainty) probably result in the largest increases in body weight. Absolute benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and finerenone vary in people with type 2 diabetes, depending on baseline risks for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes (https://matchit.magicevidence.org/230125dist-diabetes). CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis extends knowledge beyond confirming the substantial benefits with the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes and death by adding information on finerenone and tirzepatide. These findings highlight the need for continuous assessment of scientific progress to introduce cutting edge updates in clinical practice guidelines for people with type 2 diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022325948.

[Advances in hospital based internal medicine]. / Nouveautés en médecine interne hospitalière.

Hospital based internal medicine has been strongly solicited for over two years with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. This epidemic continues to evolve and represents a strain for public health. Numerous studies have addressed issues concerning this epidemic, and multiple novelties concerning other frequent pathologies have also been published. Management strategies of cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastro-intestinal and metabolic diseases are discussed.

La médecine interne hospitalière a été fortement sollicitée depuis 2 ans avec l'épidémie de SARS-CoV-2. Celle-ci continue d'évoluer et reste une épreuve pour la santé publique. Une pléthore d'études a tenté de résoudre les multiples défis que représente cette épidémie, mais de multiples nouveautés concernant d'autres pathologies fréquentes sont également apparues. La prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires, pulmonaires, gastro-intestinales et métaboliques est évoquée.

[Can we increase the availability of decision aids in French-speaking Switzerland?] / Comment augmenter l'accès aux outils d'aide à la décision en Suisse romande ?

Models of shared decision making recommend the use of patient decision aids. Hundreds of such aids exist worldwide but scaling up of their use in French-speaking Switzerland requires their translation to French and their adaptation to the clinical context. We review seven sources of tools that we assume relevant for French-speaking Switzerland. A short survey on a selection of three decision aids of general practitioners in the canton of Vaud confirmed their general interest in using such tools. They preferred a limited amount and a simple presentation of information in the decision aids to facilitate integration in clinical practice. Given the complexity of the required translations and adaptations, the medical community should develop a collaborative approach to lift this important task.

Les modèles de décision partagée recommandent, autant que possible, l'utilisation d'outils d'aide à la décision. La mise à l'échelle de la décision partagée en Suisse romande nécessite l'accès à un grand nombre d'outils de qualité disponibles en français et adaptés à notre pratique. Des centaines d'outils existent dans le monde entier. Nous passons en revue 7 types d'outils que nous supposons pertinents pour leur utilisation en Suisse romande. Nous présentons également l'avis d'un échantillon de convenance de 10 médecins généralistes vaudois sur une sélection de 3 outils. Les médecins étaient intéressés par l'utilisation de ces outils. Ils jugeaient qu'une quantité limitée et une présentation simplifiée des informations s'intégreraient mieux à leur pratique. La question de leur traduction et/ou adaptation éventuelle demeure complexe.

High-flow nasal oxygen in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A narrative review of the evidence before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a type of non-invasive advanced respiratory support that allows the delivery of high-flow and humidified air through a nasal cannula. It can deliver a higher inspired oxygen fraction than conventional oxygen therapy (COT), improves secretion clearance, has a small positive end-expiratory pressure, and exhibits a washout effect on the upper air space that diminishes dead space ventilation. HFNO has been shown to reduce the work of breathing in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and has become an interesting option for non-invasive respiratory support. Evidence published before the COVID-19 pandemic suggested a possible reduction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in AHRF worldwide, overwhelming both acute and intensive care unit capacity in most countries. This triggered new trials, adding to the body of evidence on HFNO in AHRF and its possible benefits compared to COT or non-invasive ventilation. We have summarized and discussed this recent evidence to inform the best supportive strategy in AHRF both related and unrelated to COVID-19.

[Intravenous furosemide for acute heart failure : continuous infusion or intermittent bolus ?] / Furosémide intraveineux dans l'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë : administration continue ou intermittente ?

Loop diuretics are strongly recommended by current guidelines for the treatment of acute heart failure. Intravenous furosemide can be administered either as a continuous infusion or as an intermittent bolus. The choice between these two routes is not always obvious in clinical practice. The understanding of their different mechanisms of action, as well as the notion of diuretic resistance, can help identify patients who may benefit from either of these two routes. This article aims at discussing these aspects and their pathophysiology, as well as summarizing the current body of evidence from randomized trials comparing continuous vs. intermittent administration of furosemide in acute heart failure.

Les diurétiques de l'anse sont fortement recommandés par les directives cliniques actuelles dans l'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë. Le furosémide intraveineux peut être administré sous formes continue et intermittente. En pratique clinique, le choix de la modalité d'administration n'est pas toujours évident. La compréhension de leur action et des mécanismes de résistance aux diurétiques permet d'identifier les situations cliniques qui répondent le mieux à l'une ou l'autre de ces méthodes d'administration. Cet article a pour but de discuter de ces différents aspects, notamment des mécanismes physiopathologiques en jeu, puis de synthétiser et évaluer le corpus d'évidences randomisées comparant ces deux modalités pour le traitement de l'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë.

Long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review of non-randomised studies.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL from inception to 1 April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Non-randomised studies reporting on harms of medical cannabis or cannabinoids in adults or children living with chronic pain with ≥4 weeks of follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A parallel guideline panel provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of adverse events for consideration. Two reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses and the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 39 eligible studies that enrolled 12 143 adult patients with chronic pain. Very low certainty evidence suggests that adverse events are common (prevalence: 26.0%; 95% CI 13.2% to 41.2%) among users of medical cannabis for chronic pain, particularly any psychiatric adverse events (prevalence: 13.5%; 95% CI 2.6% to 30.6%). Very low certainty evidence, however, indicates serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, cognitive adverse events, accidents and injuries, and dependence and withdrawal syndrome are less common and each typically occur in fewer than 1 in 20 patients. We compared studies with <24 weeks and ≥24 weeks of cannabis use and found more adverse events reported among studies with longer follow-up (test for interaction p<0.01). Palmitoylethanolamide was usually associated with few to no adverse events. We found insufficient evidence addressing the harms of medical cannabis compared with other pain management options, such as opioids. CONCLUSIONS: There is very low certainty evidence that adverse events are common among people living with chronic pain who use medical cannabis or cannabinoids, but that few patients experience serious adverse events.