Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines

Tsung Yu, Daniela Vollenweider, Ravi Varadhan, Tianjing Li, Cynthia Boyd, Milo A. Puhan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.Methods: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.Results: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.Conclusions: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number7
JournalBMC Medicine
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 9 2013

Fingerprint

Precision Medicine
Practice Guidelines
Therapeutics
Chronic Disease
Patient Preference
Heart Diseases
Randomized Controlled Trials
Stroke
Guidelines
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Risk Reduction Behavior

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Chronic disease
  • COPD
  • Diabetes
  • Guidelines
  • Randomized trials
  • Risk assessment
  • Stroke
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines. / Yu, Tsung; Vollenweider, Daniela; Varadhan, Ravi; Li, Tianjing; Boyd, Cynthia; Puhan, Milo A.

In: BMC Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 1, 7, 09.01.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0b4d2d2357814fea9768dceab6f69ae2,
title = "Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines",
abstract = "Background: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.Methods: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.Results: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80{\%}) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20{\%}) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45{\%}) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55{\%}) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45{\%}) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5{\%}) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15{\%}) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.Conclusions: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.",
keywords = "Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, Chronic disease, COPD, Diabetes, Guidelines, Randomized trials, Risk assessment, Stroke, Treatment",
author = "Tsung Yu and Daniela Vollenweider and Ravi Varadhan and Tianjing Li and Cynthia Boyd and Puhan, {Milo A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1186/1741-7015-11-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
journal = "BMC Medicine",
issn = "1741-7015",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines

AU - Yu, Tsung

AU - Vollenweider, Daniela

AU - Varadhan, Ravi

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Boyd, Cynthia

AU - Puhan, Milo A.

PY - 2013/1/9

Y1 - 2013/1/9

N2 - Background: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.Methods: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.Results: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.Conclusions: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

AB - Background: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.Methods: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.Results: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.Conclusions: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

KW - Cancer

KW - Cardiovascular disease

KW - Chronic disease

KW - COPD

KW - Diabetes

KW - Guidelines

KW - Randomized trials

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Stroke

KW - Treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872051705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872051705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1741-7015-11-7

DO - 10.1186/1741-7015-11-7

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - BMC Medicine

JF - BMC Medicine

SN - 1741-7015

IS - 1

M1 - 7

ER -