Impact of Revised Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Clostridium difficile Infections in the United States

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to determine if oral vancomycin, fidaxomicin, and oral metronidazole use in the United States changed after publication of revised clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in February 2018.

METHODS

We obtained US antibiotic prescription data (IQVIA) from 2006-August 2019 and used guideline-recommended dosing regimens to estimate monthly numbers of 10-day treatment courses of vancomycin, fidaxomicin and metronidazole. Interrupted time-series analyses were performed, adjusted by month. We compared linear trends for monthly numbers of treatment courses in different time periods.

RESULTS

Cumulative treatment courses of oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin increased by 54% (n = 226 166) and 48% (n = 18 518), respectively, in 18 months following guidelines compared with 18 months before; those of oral metronidazole decreased by 3% (n = 238 372). Monthly vancomycin and fidaxomicin use significantly increased throughout the period following revised guidelines (P < .0001 and P = .0002, respectively), whereas that of metronidazole decreased significantly (P < .0001). Monthly vancomycin use increased and metronidazole use decreased to a significantly greater extent after publication of revised guidelines than after publication of clinical trials establishing superiority of vancomycin over metronidazole (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Revised practice guidelines have had a significant impact on CDI treatment in the US. Clinical trial data used for the revised guidelines were available since 2007-2014 and 2011-2012 for oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin, respectively. Guidelines or guidance documents for treating CDI and other infections should be updated in more timely fashion.

Characterization of the Recommendations in the Choosing Wisely Initiative

Choosing Wisely is a comprehensive set of recommendations that guides clinicians and patients away from low-value services. The recommendations were reviewed to investigate their breadth and limitations. The authors performed an abstraction of all Choosing Wisely recommendations between March 1 and May 27, 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize various topics found in the recommendations. Of the 461 Choosing Wisely recommendations, 48% targeted workup studies, 26% non-medication management, 20% medication management, and 6% disease prevention. The most commonly targeted medical issues were coronary artery disease (9%), antibiotics overuse (8%), back pain (6%), breast cancer (5%), and prostate cancer (4%). A limited focus was found on disease prevention and a lack of alignment with health care quality measures. Characterization of Choosing Wisely revealed a comprehensive set of recommendations that addresses low-value care across many specialties. Ultimately, this study provides guidance for promoting the creation and implementation of more patient-centered, representative recommendations.

Methodologic Innovation in Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines: Insights From the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption Guideline Effort

OBJECTIVES

To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults.

DESIGN

We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff.

INTERVENTIONS

Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.