12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the management of von Willebrand disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Significant variability exists in management options offered to patients.

          Objective:

          These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health care professionals in their decisions about management of VWD.

          Methods:

          ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel. Three patient representatives were included. The panel was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Kansas Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit and the McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing and updating systematic evidence reviews (through November 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

          Results:

          The panel agreed on 12 recommendations and outlined future research priorities.

          Conclusions:

          These guidelines make key recommendations regarding prophylaxis for frequent recurrent bleeding, desmopressin trials to determine therapy, use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulant therapy, target VWF and factor VIII activity levels for major surgery, strategies to reduce bleeding during minor surgery or invasive procedures, management options for heavy menstrual bleeding, management of VWD in the context of neuraxial anesthesia during labor and delivery, and management in the postpartum setting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

            This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

              Background A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Methods Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. Results There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. Conclusions All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Blood Advances
                American Society of Hematology
                2473-9529
                2473-9537
                January 12 2021
                January 12 2021
                January 12 2021
                : 5
                : 1
                : 301-325
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hematology Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA;
                [2 ]Versiti Blood Research Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI;
                [3 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;
                [4 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Foundation Hospital and Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom;
                [5 ]Middle Village, NY;
                [6 ]Maylands, WA, Australia;
                [7 ]Department of Strategic Communication, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI;
                [8 ]Mary M. Gooley Hemophilia Treatment Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY;
                [9 ]Centre for Haematology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom;
                [10 ]Irish Centre for Vascular Biology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and National Coagulation Centre, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland;
                [11 ]Department of Hematology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
                [12 ]Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH;
                [13 ]Hemocentro UNICAMP, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil;
                [14 ]Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Hematology Department, S. Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy;
                [15 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI;
                [16 ]Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada; and
                [17 ]Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
                Article
                10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003264
                7805326
                33570647
                3b170d53-8c10-4627-bd63-643aa6a588ea
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article