Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke

BACKGROUND

In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit.

MAIN TEXT

Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Poor reporting limited consideration of EDI in the Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development.

RESULTS

A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage.

RESULTS

Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted.

RESULTS

The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Exploring the use and impact of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: where to from here?

OBJECTIVES

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing, maintaining, and disseminating living guidelines and decision support tools (clinical flowcharts) for the care of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since 2020. Living guidelines, a form of living evidence, are a relatively new approach; hence, more work is required to determine how to optimize their use to inform practice, policy, and decision-making and to explore implementation, uptake, and impact implications. An update of an earlier impact evaluation was conducted to understand sustained awareness and use of the guidelines; the factors that facilitate the widespread adoption of the guidelines and to explore the perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods impact evaluation was conducted. Surveys collected both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Participants included Australian healthcare practitioners providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and people involved in policy-making. Data were collected on awareness, use, impact, strengths, and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines and flow charts.

RESULTS

A total of 148 participants completed the survey and 21 people were interviewed between January and March 2022. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and more than 75% of participants reported that the guidelines were used within their workplace. Participants described the Taskforce website and guidelines as trustworthy, valuable, and reliable sources of up-to-date evidence-based information. The evaluation highlighted the varied ways the guidelines were being used across a range of settings and the diverse impacts they have from those at a clinical level to impacts at a policy level. Barriers to and enablers of impact and uptake of the guideline were explored.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation highlights the value of living guidelines during a pandemic when the evidence base is rapidly changing and expanding. It presents useful understanding of the ways clinicians and others use living evidence to inform their clinical practice and decision-making and the diverse impacts the guidelines are having around Australia.

Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?

BACKGROUND

While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration.

DISCUSSION

There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers.

Guideline for schizophrenia: implementation status and attitude toward an upcoming living guideline

The implementation status of clinical guidelines is, despite their important role in connecting research with practice, frequently not satisfactory. This study aims to investigate the implementation status of the current German guideline for schizophrenia. Moreover, the attitude toward a living guideline has been explored for the first time by presenting screenshots of the German schizophrenia guideline transferred to a digital living guideline format called MAGICapp. A cross-sectional online survey was performed under the participation of 17 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine in Southern Germany and one professional association for German neurologists and psychiatrists. 439 participants supplied sufficient data for analysis. 309 provided complete data sets. Regarding the current guideline for schizophrenia and key recommendations, a large awareness-to-adherence gap was found. Group comparisons between different professions (caregivers, medical doctors, psychologists/psychotherapists, psychosocial therapists) detected differences in the implementation status showing higher awareness and agreement with the schizophrenia guideline and its key recommendations among medical doctors compared to psychosocial therapists and caregivers. Moreover, we detected differences in the implementation status of the guideline as a whole and its key recommendations between specialist and assistant doctors. The attitude toward an upcoming living guideline was mostly positive, especially among younger healthcare professionals. Our findings confirm an awareness-to-adherence gap, not only for the current schizophrenia guideline in general but also for its key recommendations with apparent differences between professions. Overall, our results show promising positive attitudes toward the living guideline for schizophrenia among healthcare providers, suggesting that a living guideline may be a supportive tool in everyday clinical practice.

What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines?

A "living" approach to clinical practice guidelines is when the identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence is maintained and repeated at an agreed frequency, with a clear process for when and how new evidence is to be incorporated. The value of a living approach to guidelines was emphasised during the COVID-19 pandemic when health professionals and policymakers needed to make decisions regarding patient care in the context of a nascent but rapidly evolving evidence base. In this perspective, we draw on our recent experience developing Australian and international living guidelines and reflect on the feasibility of applying living guideline methods and processes to a lifecycle approach to health technology assessment (HTA). We believe the opportunities and challenges of adopting a living approach in HTA fall into five key themes: identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence; optimising the frequency of updates; embedding ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement; linking the emergence of new evidence to reimbursement; and system capacity to support a living approach. We acknowledge that the suitability of specific living approaches to HTA will be heavily influenced by the type of health technology, its intended use in the health system, local reimbursement pathways, and other policy settings. But we believe that the methods and processes applied successfully to guideline development to manage evidentiary uncertainty could be applied in the context of HTA and reimbursement decision-making to help manage similar sources of uncertainty.

Post-acute COVID-19 condition (PACC): a perspective on collaborative Australian research imperatives and primary health models of care

Post-acute COVID-19 condition (PACC) - also known as long COVID - is a serious and growing problem in primary health. This letter describes the work of the Victorian Post-Acute COVID-19 Study (VPACS) group, which comprises clinician researchers, basic scientists and consumers. Two key priorities for PACC research in Australia are identified and discussed: (1) the establishment of COVID-19 patient registries and data linkage; and (2) the consolidation of clinical guidelines. Collaboration between consumers, researchers, clinicians and institutions must be the foundation of PACC management in Australia. Ongoing research should focus on large, multicentre controlled studies, the protective effect of vaccination, differential impacts from variants, pathobiological underpinnings, disease mechanisms to avoid severe and enduring impacts on the Australian economy. The lived experience of people with PACC is also essential to enable the design and implementation of effective models of care. VPACS brings a diverse group of people together to work on a shared vision of holistic and high-quality care, and collectively maximise their impact on outcomes for patients and the broader community.

An Australian COVID-19 respiratory care unit experience

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a heterogeneous presentation ranging from severe pneumonitis to asymptomatic infection. International studies have demonstrated the utility of respiratory care units (RCUs) to facilitate the delivery of non-invasive ventilation techniques to patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis.

AIMS

This study aims to describe the patient characteristics, flow and outcomes of admissions to the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) COVID-19 RCU (CRCU) during its initial period of operation.

METHODS

Single-centre retrospective cohort study, all patients admitted to CRCU between 17 September and 10 December 2021 were included in this study. Patient demographics, including comorbidities and limitations of medical treatment, were analysed. Admission source and discharge destination were reviewed. Length of stay was recorded. Finally, in-hospital and CRCU mortality were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients, comprising 111 admissions, occurred during the study period with median age of 65 years (48% female). Most patients were admitted from and discharged to the ward. Twenty patients died in hospital (21%), with age, 4C score, comorbidity and presence of obstructive lung disease predicting mortality (area under the curve (AUC) 0.85, P < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in those over 65 years of age compared to those under 65 (P < 0.001), or those deemed not for intubation compared to those for intubation (P = 0.0019).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of operating a CRCU within an Australian tertiary healthcare setting.

[Concepts to support dynamic updating processes of guidelines and their practical implementation-Systematic literature review]

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG), which are crucial for evidence-based healthcare, should be kept up to date, especially on topics where emerging evidence could modify one of the recommendations with implications for the healthcare service; however, an updating process, which is practicable for guideline developers as well as users represents a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an overview of the currently discussed methodological approaches for the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

As part of a scoping review, a literature search was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Epistemonikos, medRxiv, as well as in study and guideline registers. Concepts on the dynamic updating of guidelines and systematic reviews or dynamically updated guidelines and systematic reviews or their protocols published in English or German were included.

RESULTS

The publications included most frequently described the following main processes that must be adapted in dynamic updating processes 1) the establishment of continuously working guideline groups, 2) networking between guidelines, 3) the formulation and application of prioritization criteria, 4) the adaptation of the systematic literature search and 5) the use of software tools for increased efficiency and digitalization of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The transformation to living guidelines requires a change in the needs for temporal, personnel and structural resources. The digitalization of guidelines and the use of software to increase efficiency are necessary instruments, but alone do not guarantee the realization of living guidelines. A process in which dissemination and implementation must also be integrated is necessary. Standardized best practice recommendations on the updating process are still lacking.

Ensemble of deep learning language models to support the creation of living systematic reviews for the COVID-19 literature

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of scientific publications, growing at a pace never seen before. Multiple living systematic reviews have been developed to assist professionals with up-to-date and trustworthy health information, but it is increasingly challenging for systematic reviewers to keep up with the evidence in electronic databases. We aimed to investigate deep learning-based machine learning algorithms to classify COVID-19-related publications to help scale up the epidemiological curation process.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, five different pre-trained deep learning-based language models were fine-tuned on a dataset of 6365 publications manually classified into two classes, three subclasses, and 22 sub-subclasses relevant for epidemiological triage purposes. In a k-fold cross-validation setting, each standalone model was assessed on a classification task and compared against an ensemble, which takes the standalone model predictions as input and uses different strategies to infer the optimal article class. A ranking task was also considered, in which the model outputs a ranked list of sub-subclasses associated with the article.

RESULTS

The ensemble model significantly outperformed the standalone classifiers, achieving a F1-score of 89.2 at the class level of the classification task. The difference between the standalone and ensemble models increases at the sub-subclass level, where the ensemble reaches a micro F1-score of 70% against 67% for the best-performing standalone model. For the ranking task, the ensemble obtained the highest recall@3, with a performance of 89%. Using an unanimity voting rule, the ensemble can provide predictions with higher confidence on a subset of the data, achieving detection of original papers with a F1-score up to 97% on a subset of 80% of the collection instead of 93% on the whole dataset.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the potential of using deep learning language models to perform triage of COVID-19 references efficiently and support epidemiological curation and review. The ensemble consistently and significantly outperforms any standalone model. Fine-tuning the voting strategy thresholds is an interesting alternative to annotate a subset with higher predictive confidence.

Horizon scanning, rapid reviews and living evidence to support decision-making: lessons from the work of the Critical Intelligence Unit in New South Wales, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in rapidly disseminated scientific evidence and highlighted that traditional evidence synthesis methods, such as time and resource intensive systematic reviews, may not be successful in responding to rapidly evolving policy and practice needs. In New South Wales (NSW) Australia, the Critical Intelligence Unit (CIU) was established early in the pandemic and acted as an intermediary organisation. It brought together clinical, analytical, research, organisational and policy experts to provide timely and considered advice to decision-makers. This paper provides an overview of the functions, challenges and future implications of the CIU, particularly the Evidence Integration Team. Outputs from the Evidence Integration Team included a daily evidence digest, rapid evidence checks and living evidence tables. These products have been widely disseminated and used to inform policy decisions in NSW, making valuable impacts. Changes and innovations to evidence generation, synthesis and dissemination in response to the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to shift the way evidence is used in future. The experience and methods of the CIU have potential to be adapted and applied to the broader health system nationally and internationally.

Tinnitus Guidelines and Their Evidence Base

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is generally accepted as the gold standard for high-quality medicine and, thus, for managing patients with tinnitus. EBM integrates the best available scientific information with clinical experience and patient values to guide decision-making about clinical management. To help health care providers and clinicians, the available evidence is commonly translated into medical or clinical guidelines based on a consensus. These involve a systematic review of the literature and meta-analytic aggregation of research findings followed by the formulation of clinical recommendations. However, this approach also has limitations, which include a lack of consideration of individual patient characteristics, the susceptibility of guideline recommendations to material and immaterial conflicts of interest of guideline authors and long latencies till new knowledge is implemented in guidelines. A further important aspect in interpreting the existing literature is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These circumstances could result in the decoupling of recommendations and their supporting evidence, which becomes evident when guidelines from different countries differ in their recommendations. This opinion paper will discuss how these weaknesses can be addressed in tinnitus.

Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants.

RESULTS

In the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36).

CONCLUSION

Developing and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience

OBJECTIVES

To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods.

RESULTS

The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode.

CONCLUSION

This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Article 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers.

RESULTS

Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs.

CONCLUSION

We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members.

RESULTS

We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored.

CONCLUSION

The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

OBJECTIVES

To provide a descriptive insight into the different types of research questions/objectives and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews, supplemented by representative examples from the health care literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched in methodological articles for information on types and methodologies used in overviews and we explored the typology of reviews to identify similar types in literature of overviews. We categorized the types of overviews based on the research question/objective and the methodological approach used. Indicative examples for each category were selected from a sample of 2,121 overviews that were retrieved between 2000 and 2022 from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Based on type of research question, overviews were classified as overviews of reviews of interventions, associations, prediction, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, experiences/views, economic evaluation, and measurement properties. Based on the methodological approach, we identified a variety of methods (systematic, living, rapid, scoping, evidence mapping, framework, and methodological) used in overviews.

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification and examples provide an essential starting point for future theory-building research on typologies and study designs of overviews of reviews. It is important for methodologists to make vigorous effort to create consensus-based methodological and reporting guidelines to cover these diverse types and key methodological challenges.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis.

RESULTS

One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together.

CONCLUSION

Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

ASCOT ADAPT study of COVID-19 therapeutics in hospitalised patients: an international multicentre adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a significant risk of hospitalisation, death, and prolonged impact on quality of life. Evaluation of new treatment options and optimising therapeutic management of people hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains essential, but rapid changes in pandemic conditions and potential therapies have limited the utility of traditional approaches to randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

ASCOT ADAPT is an international, investigator-initiated, adaptive platform, randomised controlled trial of therapeutics for non-critically ill patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The study design is open label and pragmatic. Potential participants are hospitalised adults with PCR confirmed, symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, within 14 days of symptom onset. Domains include antiviral, antibody and anticoagulant interventions, with a composite primary outcome of 28-day mortality or progression to intensive-care level respiratory or haemodynamic support. Initial interventions include intravenous nafamostat and variable dose anticoagulation. A range of secondary endpoints, and substudies for specific domains and interventions are outlined.

DISCUSSION

This paper presents the trial protocol and management structure, including international governance, remote site monitoring and biobanking activities and provides commentary on ethical and pragmatic considerations in establishing the ASCOT ADAPT trial under pandemic conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000445976) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04483960).

Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting living evidence (LE) synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements.

METHODS

A survey of methodological articles describing or analyzing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis.

RESULTS

Twelve methodological articles were identified and analyzed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis.

CONCLUSION

This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in the current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift toward more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.

Care for adults with COVID ‐19: living guidelines from the National COVID ‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

The Australian National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up‐to‐date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

Main recommendations

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non‐pregnant adults with COVID‐19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID‐19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID‐19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au).

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

Development and Use of a Cardiac Clinical Guideline Mobile App in Australia: Acceptability and Multi-Methods Study

Background

Implementation of clinical guidelines into routine practice remains highly variable. Strategies to increase guideline uptake include developing digital tools and mobile apps for use in clinical practice. The National Heart Foundation of Australia in collaboration with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand published 3 key cardiac clinical guidelines, including the Australian clinical guidelines for the (1) prevention and detection of atrial fibrillation, (2) detection and management of heart failure, and (3) management of acute coronary syndromes. To improve access and uptake for health care providers, we developed the Smart Heart Guideline App.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the acceptability, implementation, and usability of an Australian-specific cardiac guidelines mobile app.

Methods

We used an iterative multiple methods development and implementation approach. First, we conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with end users (n=504 health professionals) in 2017 to determine the acceptability of an Australian-specific cardiac clinical guidelines mobile app. Second, the Smart Heart Guidelines app was created using a design, user testing, and revision process. The app includes interactive algorithms and flowcharts to inform diagnosis and management at the point of care. The freely available app was launched in October 2019 on iOS and Android operating systems and promoted and implemented using multiple methods. Third, data from 2 annual national cross-sectional general practitioner (GP) surveys in 2019 and 2020 were evaluated to understand the awareness and use of the clinical guidelines and the app. Fourth, data from the app stores were analyzed between October 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021, to evaluate usage.

Results

Most health professionals surveyed (447/504, 89%) reported accessing resources electronically, and most (318/504, 63%) reported that they would use an Australian-specific cardiac guidelines app. GPs surveyed in 2019 were aware of the heart failure (159/312, 51%) and atrial fibrillation (140/312, 45%) guidelines, and in 2020, a total of 34 of 189 (18%) reported that they were aware of the app. The app was downloaded 11,313 times (7483, 66% from the Apple App Store; 3830, 34% from Google Play) during the first 20-month period. Most downloads (6300/7483, 84%) were a result of searching for the app in the stores. Monthly download rates varied. App Store data showed that people used the app twice (on average 2.06 times) during the 20 months. Many (3256/3830, 85%) Android users deleted the app.

Conclusions

Health professionals supported the development of the Smart Heart Guidelines app. Although initial downloads were promising, the frequency of using the app was low and deletion rates were high. Further evaluation of users’ experience of the most and least useful components of the app is needed.

How frequently should "living" guidelines be updated? Insights from the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

Background

“Living guidelines” are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

Methods

Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed.

Results

Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon.

Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics.

Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials.

Conclusions

Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of “continual” differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines.

Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol

Background: Living evidence (LE) refers to the methodological processes that permit new research findings to be continually incorporated into evidence synthesis. This approach is of great value in the resolution of relevant and rapidly changing clinical questions. To date, the methods to carry out this type of synthesis are not completely defined, and great variability is observed in the approaches used by different groups of authors. Objective: To identify, evaluate and summarise the current methods used for living evidence synthesis Methods: We will conduct a methodological study based on a systematic literature search to identify any type of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews, network metanalyses and overviews that used "living evidence synthesis" as part of their methods. The search will be conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and Epistemonikos databases. Additionally, we will search websites of the organisations publishing any living evidence synthesis retrieved in the two databases, in order to identify unpublished subsequent reports. Two reviewers will independently assess each article against the selection criteria, extract data on methods and procedures, and assess the methodological quality of each publication. Data will be analysed descriptively.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation

Introduction

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project.

Methods

The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified.

Conclusions

In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID‐19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia.

Main recommendations

The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID‐19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID‐19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease‐directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID‐19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care.

Changes in management as result of the guideline

The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID‐19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

SARS-CoV-2 in children with cancer or after haematopoietic stem cell transplant: An analysis of 131 patients

PURPOSE

There are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection in children with cancer or after haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). We describe the severity and outcomes of SARS-COV-2 in these patients and identify factors associated with severe disease.

METHODS

This was a multinational, observational study of children (aged <19 years) with cancer or HSCT and SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. COVID-19 was classified as asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe or critical (≥1 organ support). Exact polytomous regression was used to determine the relationship between clinical variables and disease severity.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one patients with COVID-19 across 10 countries were identified (median age 8 years). Seventy-eight (60%) had leukaemia/lymphoma, 48 (37%) had solid tumour and five had primary immunodeficiency and HSCT. Fever (71%), cough (47%) and coryza (29%) were the most frequent symptoms. The median duration of detectable virus was 16 days (range, 1-79 days). Forty-nine patients (37%) were hospitalised for COVID-19 symptoms, and 15 (11%) required intensive care unit-level care. Chemotherapy was delayed/modified in 35% of patients. COVID-19 was asymptomatic in 32% of patients, mild in 47%, moderate in 8%, severe in 4% and critical in 9%. In 124 patients (95%), a full recovery was documented, and four (3%) died due to COVID-19. Any comorbidity (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.81-5.21), any coinfection (1.74; 95% CI 1.03-3.03) and severe baseline neutropenia (1.82; 95% CI 1.13-3.09) were independently and significantly associated with increasing disease severity.

CONCLUSION

Although most children with cancer had asymptomatic/mild disease, 13% had severe COVID-19 and 3% died. Comorbidity, coinfection and neutropenia may increase the risk of severe disease. Our data may help management decisions in this vulnerable population.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement.

RESULTS

A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored.

CONCLUSIONS

As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Feasibility of national living guideline methods: the Australian Stroke Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Maintaining clinical guideline currency has been one challenge to traditional guideline development. This paper describes the methods used to maintain a large national guideline for stroke management.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines are developed to meet Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) standards. Monthly surveillance is conducted for new systematic reviews and randomised controlled studies. Included studies undergo data extraction followed by preparation of updated evidence-to-decision frameworks which are used to inform updates, or development of new recommendations. Small writing groups made up of clinical experts and those with lived experience review and agree on changes, which are finally reviewed by a multidisciplinary Guidelines Steering Group. Draft changes are developed and published using the online MAGICapp platform, with dissemination and promotion via traditional methods as well as social media.

RESULTS

Each month approximately 350 abstracts are considered, covering 96 clinical topics and taking on average 16 hours to review. There have been four major guideline updates covering 34 new and updated recommendations.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to use 'living' methods to maintain the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Further work is now needed to understand the impact of living guidelines.

Clinical care of children and adolescents with COVID-19: recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

INTRODUCTION

The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are different in children and adolescents compared with adults. Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be less common in children, with milder disease overall, severe complications may occur, including paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS-TS). Recognising the distinct needs of this population, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce formed a Paediatric and Adolescent Care Panel to provide living guidelines for Australian clinicians to manage children and adolescents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 complications. Living guidelines mean that these evidence-based recommendations are updated in near real time to give reliable, contemporaneous advice to Australian clinicians providing paediatric care.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

To date, the Taskforce has made 20 specific recommendations for children and adolescents, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, respiratory support, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for COVID-19 and for the management of PIMS-TS.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINES

The Taskforce currently recommends corticosteroids as first line treatment for acute COVID-19 in children and adolescents who require oxygen. Tocilizumab could be considered, and remdesivir should not be administered routinely in this population. Non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannulae should be considered in children and adolescents with hypoxaemia or respiratory distress unresponsive to low flow oxygen if appropriate infection control measures can be used. Children and adolescents with PIMS-TS should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids, with concomitant aspirin and thromboprophylaxis, should be considered for the treatment of PIMS-TS. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

The Evolution of Clinical Knowledge During COVID-19: Towards a Global Learning Health System

OBJECTIVES

We examine the knowledge ecosystem of COVID-19, focusing on clinical knowledge and the role of health informatics as enabling technology. We argue for commitment to the model of a global learning health system to facilitate rapid knowledge translation supporting health care decision making in the face of emerging diseases.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We frame the evolution of knowledge in the COVID-19 crisis in terms of learning theory, and present a view of what has occurred during the pandemic to rapidly derive and share knowledge as an (underdeveloped) instance of a global learning health system. We identify the key role of information technologies for electronic data capture and data sharing, computational modelling, evidence synthesis, and knowledge dissemination. We further highlight gaps in the system and barriers to full realisation of an efficient and effective global learning health system.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for a global knowledge ecosystem supporting rapid learning from clinical practice has become more apparent than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. Continued effort to realise the vision of a global learning health system, including establishing effective approaches to data governance and ethics to support the system, is imperative to enable continuous improvement in our clinical care.

Towards living guidelines on cardiorenal outcomes in diabetes: A pilot project of the Taskforce of the Guideline Workshop 2020

In June 2020, the Taskforce of the Guideline Workshop 2019 convened via teleconferencing to initiate a pilot project that demonstrates the various processes and considerations involved in developing high-quality, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the medical management of individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its associated comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of the pilot project was to create evidence-based guidelines for use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) when managing very high risk T2D patients, evidenced by the presence of both CVD and CKD. For this purpose the Taskforce represented a guideline panel and made use of synthesized evidence from an ongoing BMJ Rapid Recommendations project on SGLT2-I and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Results from the Taskforce pilot project demonstrated the value, feasibility and utility of using a step-wise approach to identifying and grading evidence and then developing actionable recommendations for utilizing SGLT2-I in this at-risk T2D population. This report describes the various steps involved in the process and explains how it can be utilized to rapidly develop recommendations in a format that is easy to use and can be quickly updated as new evidence becomes available, also within the emerging concept of living guidelines.