Implementation study of the 2021 German guideline for diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Immunotherapy Implementation study Multiple sclerosis practice guideline Pulsed MS therapies Treatment algorithm Treatment stop

Journal

Multiple sclerosis and related disorders
ISSN: 2211-0356
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler Relat Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101580247

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Historique:
received: 19 10 2021
revised: 19 11 2021
accepted: 27 11 2021
pubmed: 18 12 2021
medline: 17 2 2022
entrez: 17 12 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In May 2021, a new guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis and related disorders was released in Germany. Since the success of a guideline depends on how it integrates into everyday clinical practice, the German Society for Neurology (DGN) has launched a multimethod implementation project. Here we report on the results based on the consultation version of the guideline. We used qualitative and quantitative data analyses to capture the nature and extent of barriers and facilitating factors to the implementation. We centered on the guideline's chapter A on diagnosis, relapse therapy, and immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis. We performed nine online focus group discussions and a web-based survey and analyzed emails and letters with comments from stakeholders and independent parties that were sent spontaneously or by invitation. 94 neurologists answered the survey, and ≥70% agreed with the recommendations of the guideline on each major content topic. Barriers to implementation were detected in group discussions and written input. The most controversial issues of the guideline were "early treatment", "criteria for starting or switching therapy", "stepwise escalation versus early aggressive treatment", "classification of drugs into three categories of efficacy" and the scenarios on "treatment cessation". Some appreciated the highly structured recommendations, but others felt that the guideline restricts the free choice of therapy, or they were afraid of recourse claims. Some considered the guideline as too cautious regarding treatment initiation, possibly delaying necessary therapies. Others appreciated that conflicts of interests of the guideline's authoring group were minimized and thought that the new guideline is clearer, more extensive and practical. In contrast to the survey, feedback in the focus group discussions and from individuals was diverse and sometimes more critical. Based on the overall feedback rate of about 250 people in relation to the number of 6500 board-certified neurologists in Germany, the overall appreciation of the guideline can only be considered as an indicator and not proof of acceptance. Results of this analysis were incorporated into several adjustments to the final guideline of 2021. Since the guideline is to be updated regularly under the auspices of a "living guideline", active interaction with users will continue to matter and help to improve it.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In May 2021, a new guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis and related disorders was released in Germany. Since the success of a guideline depends on how it integrates into everyday clinical practice, the German Society for Neurology (DGN) has launched a multimethod implementation project. Here we report on the results based on the consultation version of the guideline.
METHODS METHODS
We used qualitative and quantitative data analyses to capture the nature and extent of barriers and facilitating factors to the implementation. We centered on the guideline's chapter A on diagnosis, relapse therapy, and immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis. We performed nine online focus group discussions and a web-based survey and analyzed emails and letters with comments from stakeholders and independent parties that were sent spontaneously or by invitation.
RESULTS RESULTS
94 neurologists answered the survey, and ≥70% agreed with the recommendations of the guideline on each major content topic. Barriers to implementation were detected in group discussions and written input. The most controversial issues of the guideline were "early treatment", "criteria for starting or switching therapy", "stepwise escalation versus early aggressive treatment", "classification of drugs into three categories of efficacy" and the scenarios on "treatment cessation". Some appreciated the highly structured recommendations, but others felt that the guideline restricts the free choice of therapy, or they were afraid of recourse claims. Some considered the guideline as too cautious regarding treatment initiation, possibly delaying necessary therapies. Others appreciated that conflicts of interests of the guideline's authoring group were minimized and thought that the new guideline is clearer, more extensive and practical.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to the survey, feedback in the focus group discussions and from individuals was diverse and sometimes more critical. Based on the overall feedback rate of about 250 people in relation to the number of 6500 board-certified neurologists in Germany, the overall appreciation of the guideline can only be considered as an indicator and not proof of acceptance. Results of this analysis were incorporated into several adjustments to the final guideline of 2021. Since the guideline is to be updated regularly under the auspices of a "living guideline", active interaction with users will continue to matter and help to improve it.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34920249
pii: S2211-0348(21)00700-8
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2021.103434
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

103434

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Auteurs

C Mokry (C)

Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Institute of Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis (INIMS), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

C Warnke (C)

Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

K Gehring (K)

Neurocentre at Klosterforst, Itzehoe, Germany.

H Hegen (H)

Department of Neurology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

A Salmen (A)

Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

M Kraemer (M)

Department of Neurology, Alfried Krupp Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.

I Kleiter (I)

Marianne-Strauß-Klinik, Behandlungszentrum Kempfenhausen für Multiple Sklerose Kranke gemeinnützige GmbH, Germany.

E Fasshauer (E)

German Multiple Sclerosis Society (DMSG), Bundesverband e.V., Hannover, Germany.

J Scheiderbauer (J)

Stiftung für Selbstbestimmung und Selbstvertretung von MS-Betroffene, Trier, Germany.

D Lühmann (D)

Department of Family medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

S Köpke (S)

Department for Nursing Sciences, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

A Berthele (A)

School of Medicine, Dept. Of Neurology, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.

C Heesen (C)

Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Institute of Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis (INIMS), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: heesen@uke.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH