American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Protocol for Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines, Algorithms, and Checklists - 2014 Update and the AACE G4G Program

Mechanick, Jeffrey I.; Camacho, Pauline M.; Garber, Alan J.; Garber, Jeffrey R.; Pessah-Pollack, Rachel; Petak, Steven M.; Tangpricha, Vin; Trence, Dace L.

doi:10.4158/ep14166.ps

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Selection of the cochairs, primary writers, and reviewers, as well as the logistics for creating this evidence-based CPG were conducted in strict adherence with the AACE Protocol for Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines—2010 and 2014 Updates (2 [EL 4; CPG NE; see Fig. 1; Tables 1-4]; 3 [EL 4; CPG NE; see Tables 1-4]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – Clinical Practice Guidelines for Developing A Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan – 2015 — Executive Summary

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – Clinical Practice Guidelines for Developing A Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan – 2015 — Executive Summary

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…25,26 The AEs were graded according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4.0). Lipid modifications were graded according to adapted American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) criteria, 27 and glucose abnormalities according to adapted American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, to evaluate the clinical impact of metabolic effects, we decided to classify the abnormalities according to specific criteria, as recommended by ADA and AACE guidelines. 27,28 With these caveats, it is possible to describe, but not to compare, the 2-year incidence of major CVAEs in the present trial and in the ENEST1st one:…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily: an academic single-arm study of newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he introduction and the extended clinical use of nilotinib in the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia have been based on company-sponsored trials. Independent confirmations are extremely important. We report an investigator-sponsored study of nilotinib 300 mg twice daily in 130 chronic myeloid leukemia patients in early chronic phase. A deep molecular response was achieved in 46% (MR 4.0 ) and 17% (MR 4.5 ) of patients at 2 years; 58% of the enrolled patients achieved a MR 4.0 at least once, with a sustained MR 4.0 in 52% of them. With a median observation of 29 months (range 24-37 months), 77% of patients were still on treatment with nilotinib. The reasons for permanent discontinuation were: 3% progression, 5% failure or suboptimal response, 8% adverse events, 1% treatment-free remission, and 5% other reasons. Thirteen thrombotic arterial events were reported in 12 patients. A prospective evaluation of metabolic effects showed an increase of fasting glucose without significant variations of glycated hemoglobin, an increase of total cholesterol (both low density lipoprotein and high density lipoprotein fractions) and a decrease of triglycerides. This study confirms a high and rapid efficacy of nilotinib 300 mg twice daily and provides detailed information on the type and incidence of non-hematologic and metabolic adverse events (clinicaltrials.gov identifier:01535391).

show abstract

“…This protocol is being continuously updated, latest in 2014, as the AACE recognizes the importance of the standardization in the assessment and development of guidelines strategies [33]. This protocol balances the contribution of evidence-based medicine (EBM) methods and subjective factors in practice guidelines.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines on vitamin D replacement in bariatric surgery: Identification and systematic appraisal

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Bariatric surgery is the most effective therapeutic option to reduce weight in morbidly obese individuals, but it results in a number of mineral and vitamin deficiencies. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) attempt to balance those benefits and harms to provide guidance to physicians and patients. Objectives We compare and evaluate the quality of the evidence and of the development process of current CPGs that provide recommendations on vitamin D replacement in patients undergoing bariatric surgery, using a validated tool. Methods We searched 4 databases, with no time restriction, to identify relevant and current CPGs. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and abstracted data, in duplicate. They evaluated the quality of CPGs development process using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool that consists of 6 domains. A content expert verified those assessments. Results We identified 3 eligible CPGs: (1) the Endocrine Society (ES) guidelines (2010); (2) the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), and the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASBMS) guidelines (update 2013); and (3) the Interdisciplinary European (IE) guidelines on Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (latest update 2014). The ES and the AACE/TOS/ASBMS guidelines recommended high doses of vitamin D, varying from 3,000 IU daily to 50,000 IU 1-3 times weekly. Vitamin D doses were not mentioned in the IE guidelines. The recommendations were based on a low quality of evidence, if any, or limited to a single high quality trial, for some outcomes. In terms of quality, only the IE guidelines described their search methodology but none of the CPGs provided details on evidence selection and appraisal. None of the three CPGs rigorously assessed the preferences of the target population, resource implications, and the applicability of these guidelines. According to the AGREE II tool, we rated the ES guidelines as average in quality, and the other two as low in quality. Conclusion Current CPGs recommendations on vitamin D supplementation in bariatric surgery differ between societies. They do not fulfill criteria for optimal guideline development, in part possibly due to limited resources, and are based on expert opinion. Thus, the pressing need for high quality randomized trials to inform CPGs, to be developed based on recommended standards.

show abstract

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Protocol for Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines, Algorithms, and Checklists - 2014 Update and the AACE G4G Program

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – Clinical Practice Guidelines for Developing A Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan – 2015 — Executive Summary

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – Clinical Practice Guidelines for Developing A Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan – 2015 — Executive Summary

Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily: an academic single-arm study of newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients

Guidelines on vitamin D replacement in bariatric surgery: Identification and systematic appraisal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About