Embedding patients' values and preferences in guideline development for allergic diseases: The case study of Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma 2024.
GRADE
allergic rhinitis
guidelines
utility
values and preferences
Journal
Clinical and translational allergy
ISSN: 2045-7022
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Allergy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101576043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2024
Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
14
04
2024
accepted:
01
06
2024
medline:
12
6
2024
pubmed:
12
6
2024
entrez:
11
6
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision-making context, patients' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence-to-Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade-off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health-related quality of life, such as EQ-5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person-centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12377Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
Références
Church MK, Maurer M, Simons FE, et al. Risk of first‐generation H(1)‐antihistamines: a GA(2)LEN position paper. Allergy. 2010;65(4):459‐466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398‐9995.2009.02325.x
Zhang Y, Alonso‐Coello P, Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences‐Risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:94‐104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.013
Alonso‐Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2089
Alonso‐Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016
Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719‐725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013
Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation‐determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726‐735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003
Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM. What are values, utilities, and preferences? A clarification in the context of decision making in health care, and an exploration of measurement issues. In: Handbook of Health Decision Science. Springer; 2016:3‐13.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15(2):209‐231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167‐6296(95)00038‐0
McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost‐utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision‐making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):93‐106. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053‐200725020‐00003
Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade‐off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155‐175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167‐6296(96)00509‐7
Hernández Alava M, Wailoo A, Wolfe F, Michaud K. A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):919‐930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13500720
Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ‐5D Data. Springer Nature; 2020.
Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B, Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. An introduction to EQ‐5D instruments and their applications. In: Methods for analysing and reporting EQ‐5D data. Springer; 2020:1‐22.
Vieira RJ, Leemann L, Briggs A, et al. Poor rhinitis and asthma control is associated with decreased health‐related quality‐of‐life and utilities: a MASK‐air study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024;12(6):1530‐1538.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.03.036
Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Ferrie PJ, Roberts JN. Validation of the standardized version of the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104(2):364‐369. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091‐6749(99)70380‐5
Dick K, Briggs A, Brandi H. Application of a mapping function to estimate utilities for ragweed allergy immunotherapy trials. Pharmacoecon Open. 2020;4(4):649‐655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669‐020‐00205‐y
Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences—inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:83‐93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.011
Alonso‐Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. Gac Sanit. 2017;32(2):167.e1‐167.e10.
Alonso‐Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ. 2016:353.
Etxeandia‐Ikobaltzeta I, Zhang Y, Brundisini F, et al. Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines. Blood Adv. 2020;4(5):953‐968. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000462
Zhang Y, Morgan RL, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes. Eur Respir J. 2018;52(1):1800222. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00222‐2018
Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Akl EA, et al. Methodology for the American Society of Hematology VTE guidelines: current best practice, innovations, and experiences. Blood Adv. 2020;4(10):2351‐2365. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001768
Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Dahm P, et al. Development and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision‐making in the production of practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:115‐127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.016
Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Zhang Y, et al. New methods facilitated the process of prioritizing questions and health outcomes in guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;143:91‐104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.031
Izcovich A, Cuker A, Kunkle R, et al. A user guide to the American Society of Hematology clinical practice guidelines. Blood Adv. 2020;4(9):2095‐2110. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001755
Baldeh T, Saz‐Parkinson Z, Muti P, et al. Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955‐020‐01338‐8
Bousquet J, Anto JM, Sousa‐Pinto B, et al. Digitally‐enabled, patient‐centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: the ARIA‐MASK‐air(®) approach. Clin Transl Allergy. 2023;13(1):e12215.
Bousquet J, Arnavielhe S, Bedbrook A, et al. MASK 2017: ARIA digitally‐enabled, integrated, person‐centred care for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using real‐world‐evidence. Clin Transl Allergy. 2018;8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13601‐018‐0227‐6
Brozek J, Borowiack E, Sadowska E, et al. Patients’ values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis – a systematic review. Allergy. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.16100
Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved; 2011.
Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525‐531. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003‐4819‐156‐7‐201204030‐00009
Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Togias A, et al. Next‐generation allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) and real‐world evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):70‐80.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2019.06.049
Brożek JL, Bousquet J, Agache I, et al. Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines‐2016 revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140(4):950‐958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2017.03.050
Bousquet J, Caimmi DP, Bedbrook A, et al. Pilot study of mobile phone technology in allergic rhinitis in European countries: the MASK‐rhinitis study. Allergy. 2017;72(6):857‐865. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13125
Bousquet J, Devillier P, Arnavielhe S, et al. Treatment of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology with real‐world data: the MASK observational pilot study. Allergy. 2018;73(9):1763‐1774. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13406
Vieira RJ, Pham‐Thi N, Anto JM, et al. Academic productivity of young people with allergic rhinitis: a MASK‐air study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022;10(11):3008‐3017.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2022.08.015
Schünemann H. Tutte le prove sono real world evidence. Recenti Progr Med. 2019;110(4):165‐167.