| Literature DB >> 31333565 |
Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi1, Joaquim Ferreira2, Renaud Massart1, Katia Youssov1, Anne Rosser3, Monica Busse4, David Craufurd5,6, Ralf Reilmann7,8, Giuseppe De Michele9, Daniela Rae10, Ferdinando Squitieri11, Klaus Seppi12, Charles Perrine13, Clarisse Scherer-Gagou14, Olivier Audrey14, Christophe Verny15, Jean-Marc Burgunder16.
Abstract
The European Huntington's Disease Network (EHDN) commissioned an international task force to provide global evidence-based recommendations for everyday clinical practice for treatment of Huntington's disease (HD). The objectives of such guidelines are to standardize pharmacological, surgical and non-pharmacological treatment regimen and improve care and quality of life of patients. A formalized consensus method, adapted from the French Health Authority recommendations was used. First, national committees (French and English Experts) reviewed all studies published between 1965 and 2015 included dealing with HD symptoms classified in motor, cognitive, psychiatric, and somatic categories. Quality grades were attributed to these studies based on levels of scientific evidence. Provisional recommendations were formulated based on the strength and the accumulation of scientific evidence available. When evidence was not available, recommendations were framed based on professional agreement. A European Steering committee supervised the writing of the final recommendations through a consensus process involving two rounds of online questionnaire completion with international multidisciplinary HD health professionals. Patients' associations were invited to review the guidelines including the HD symptoms. Two hundred and nineteen statements were retained in the final guidelines. We suggest to use this adapted method associating evidence base-medicine and expert consensus to other rare diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Huntington's disease; care; clinical practice; guidelines; treatment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31333565 PMCID: PMC6618900 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Figure 1Guidelines' developing stages.
Level of scientific evidence and gradation of studies.
Composition of the international multidisciplinary HD health professionals.
| Number of participants | 67 | 38 | 63 | 36 | 60 | 32 | 56 | 30 | |
| Expertises | Dentists | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geneticists | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |
| Neurologists | 39 | 24 | 35 | 20 | 34 | 20 | 33 | 22 | |
| (Neuro)psychologists | 8 | 2 | 11 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 2 | |
| Nurses | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| Physiotherapists | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Psychiatrists | 7 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 2 | |
| Countries | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | Australia | |
Rules to determine the strength of the consensus of the multidisciplinary experts.
| Appropriate | Strong agreement | ≥7 | All between (7-9) | No | ≥7 | All between (7-9); two values missing or <7 tolerated |
| Relative agreement | ≥7 | All between (5-9) | Yes | ≥7 | All between (5-9); two values missing and/or <5 tolerated | |
| Inappropriate | Strong disagreement | ≤3 | All between (1-3) | No | ≤3 | All between (1-3); two values missing or >3 tolerated |
| Relative disagreement | ≤3.5 | All between (1-5) | Yes | ≤3.5 | All between (1-5); two values missing or >5 tolerated | |
| Indeterminate | Indecision | Between [4–6.5] | Whatever the distribution | Yes | Between [4–6.5] | Whatever the distribution |
| No consensus | ≥7 | At least one <5 or missing | Yes | ≥7 | At least three <5 or missing | |
| ≤3.5 | At least one >5 or missing | Yes | ≤3.5 | At least three >5 or missing | ||