Florence

The Development of Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements by the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians: Update of Methods

The American College of Physicians (ACP) was one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines and has been developing guidelines since 1981. ACP's Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC), in collaboration with staff from the Clinical Policy department, develops clinical guidelines and guidance statements and continues to refine and enhance its methodology. This article presents an update of the CGC's 2010 paper outlining policies, methods, and presentation format of ACP's clinical guidelines and guidance statements. Updated methods include more stringent policies about disclosure of interests and conflict management; inclusion of public perspective; full adoption of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods; more standardized reporting formats that consider value of care, patient comorbid conditions, patient values and preferences, and costs; and further clarification of guidance statement methods.

Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements: Methods From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care–related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.

Brief Commentary: Advocating for Blunt Policy

Correcting Misinterpretations of the E-Value

Telemedicine and the Tattooed Lady

Medical Graphic Narratives to Improve Patient Comprehension and Periprocedural Anxiety Before Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Trial

Doctors of a Certain Age

Patterns of Opioid Administration Among Opioid-Naive Inpatients and Associations With Postdischarge Opioid Use: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 2

Background: Patterns of inpatient opioid use and their associations with postdischarge opioid use are poorly understood. Objective: To measure patterns in timing, duration, and setting of opioid administration in opioid-naive hospitalized patients and to examine associations with postdischarge use. Design: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from 2010 to 2014. Setting: 12 community and academic hospitals in Pennsylvania. Patients: 148 068 opioid-naive patients (191 249 admissions) with at least 1 outpatient encounter within 12 months before and after admission. Measurements: Number of days and patterns of inpatient opioid use; any outpatient use (self-report and/or prescription orders) 90 and 365 days after discharge. Results: Opioids were administered in 48% of admissions. Patients were given opioids for a mean of 67.9% (SD, 25.0%) of their stay. Location of administration of first opioid on admission, timing of last opioid before discharge, and receipt of nonopioid analgesics varied substantially. After adjustment for potential confounders, 5.9% of inpatients receiving opioids had outpatient use at 90 days compared with 3.0% of those without inpatient use (difference, 3.0 percentage points [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.2 percentage points]). Opioid use at 90 days was higher in inpatients receiving opioids less than 12 hours before discharge than in those with at least 24 opioid-free hours before discharge (7.5% vs. 3.9%; difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 3.3 to 3.9 percentage points]). Differences based on proportion of the stay with opioid use were modest (opioid use at 90 days was 6.4% and 5.4%, respectively, for patients with opioid use for ≥75% vs. ≤25% of their stay; difference, 1.0 percentage point [CI, 0.4 to 1.5 percentage points]). Associations were similar for opioid use 365 days after discharge. Limitation: Potential unmeasured confounders related to opioid use. Conclusion: This study found high rates of opioid administration to opioid-naive inpatients and associations between specific patterns of inpatient use and risk for long-term use after discharge. Primary Funding Source: UPMC Health System and University of Pittsburgh.

Acute Illness Associated With Cannabis Use, by Route of Exposure: An Observational Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 8

Background: Little is known about the relative harms of edible and inhalable cannabis products. Objective: To describe and compare adult emergency department (ED) visits related to edible and inhaled cannabis exposure. Design: Chart review of ED visits between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016. Setting: A large urban academic hospital in Colorado. Participants: Adults with ED visits with a cannabis-related International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM), code. Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics, route of exposure, dose, symptoms, length of stay, disposition, discharge diagnoses, and attribution of visit to cannabis. Results: There were 9973 visits with an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM code for cannabis use. Of these, 2567 (25.7%) visits were at least partially attributable to cannabis, and 238 of those (9.3%) were related to edible cannabis. Visits attributable to inhaled cannabis were more likely to be for cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (18.0% vs. 8.4%), and visits attributable to edible cannabis were more likely to be due to acute psychiatric symptoms (18.0% vs. 10.9%), intoxication (48% vs. 28%), and cardiovascular symptoms (8.0% vs. 3.1%). Edible products accounted for 10.7% of cannabis-attributable visits between 2014 and 2016 but represented only 0.32% of total cannabis sales in Colorado (in kilograms of tetrahydrocannabinol) during that period. Limitation: Retrospective study design, single academic center, self-reported exposure data, and limited availability of dose data. Conclusion: Visits attributable to inhaled cannabis are more frequent than those attributable to edible cannabis, although the latter is associated with more acute psychiatric visits and more ED visits than expected. Primary Funding Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.