ABSTRACT
BackgroundWith a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found that most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked many at-risk populations, and had variations in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. The aim of this study was to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs in different settings. MethodsA cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide from 15 June to 20 July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs. were analyzed by geographic location. ResultsSeventy-six clinicians, from 27 countries responded, 82% from high-income countries, 17% from low-middle income countries. Most respondents reported access to Covid-19 CMG and confidence in implementation of these. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatments and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women and 50% for older adults (>65 years). Themes emerging were for CMGs to include recommendations for different at-risk populations, and settings, include supportive care guidance, be readily updated as evidence emerges, and CMG implementation supported by training, and access to treatments recommended. ConclusionOur findings highlight important gaps in Covid-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting different at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. The findings highlight a need for a new, harmonized evidence-based, that is inclusive and adaptable for different context, incorporating implementation support, to improve access in evidence-based care recommendations during an emergency.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo assess the responsiveness and quality of clinical management guidelines (CMGs) in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 and determine whether this has improved over time. DesignRapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation. Data Sources- Google and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to 6th June 2020.This was supplemented with hand searches of national and international public health agency and infectious disease society websites as well as directly approaching clinical networks in regions where few CMGs had been identified via the primary search. Eligibility CriteriaCMGs for the treatment of COVID-19/SARS/MERS providing recommendations on supportive care and/or specific treatment. MethodsData extraction was performed using a standardised form. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. Six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development. ResultsWe included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws (only two MERS-CoV and four COVID-19 CMGs were recommended for use by both reviewers without modification) and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group at all. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Eight guidelines recommended that use of unproven agents should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Patient representatives expressed concern about the lack of engagement with them in CMG development and that these documents are not accessible to non-experts. ConclusionThe quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found no evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. There is an need to strengthen the evidence base surrounding basic supportive care and develop methods to engage patients in CMG development from the beginning in outbreak settings. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020167361
