Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies. \u00a9 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
\n \n\n \n \nResearch on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential. \u00a9 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
\n \n\n \n \nPurpose: Inconsistencies and omissions in drug-drug interaction (DDI) management guidelines may lead to harm and suboptimal therapy. The purpose of this study was to define a checklist for DDI management guidelines to help developers produce high-quality guidelines that will support healthcare providers in clinical practice. Methods: We carried out a two-round Delphi process with an international panel of healthcare providers, most of whom are pharmacists involved in providing DDI information, in order to select those items that should be addressed in DDI management guidelines (including grading systems that could be used). Results: Twenty-three panellists reached consensus on 19 items in two main domains. These were consolidated into a checklist of 15 elements for standardized reporting in management guidelines. For each element a description is provided to specify what information should be documented in that specific element. Conclusions: It was possible to reach a broad consensus on which relevant items should be included in a checklist for the development of DDI management guidelines. \u00a9 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
\n \n\n \n \nA thorough analysis of a case that involves a medication that may have caused or contributed to an adverse outcome, or a comparison of two compounds in a patent dispute, requires consideration of many processes that affect the clinical effects of a medication. These include its chemical structure, its pharmacological actions (pharmacodynamics), the pharmaceutical formulation, and its absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (pharmacokinetics). They also include analysis of clinical details, including the diagnosis, the quality of the prescribing decisions, the accuracy of the prescription, dispensing, and administration of medications, and how appropriately the case was managed, including monitoring. A causality assessment should be attempted for both the general case and the particular case. Knowledge of the systems that describe a medication's mechanisms of action (EIDOS) and the dose-relationships and time-courses of adverse outcomes and individual susceptibilities to them (DoTS) can inform several aspects of the analysis. Reports should be written in clear English and should not contain statements that rely on expertise that the expert does not possess.
\n \n\n \n \nRegulatory agencies grant product licences (marketing authorizations) for medicinal products in the light of evidence that the balance between benefit and harm in the population is favourable. Here we consider a framework for allowing regulatory agencies to make rational decisions when reviewing product licences in the light of new information about harms that change that balance. The regulator can revoke the product licence, restrict the product's availability or change the 'label' in different ways. We examine the features of the adverse effect that may be relevant in making the decision: namely, individual differences in susceptibility; the possibility of monitoring; and the availability of protective strategies. The balance of benefit and harm, and the time-course and dose relation of the adverse effect play important roles in the decision-making process. We set out how these factors can help determine the logical response to new information on the balance between benefit and harm, and provide a series of relevant examples. We believe that when regulatory agencies have to decide how to amend the product licence of a drug when new serious adverse effects cause concern, they would find it useful to adopt a framework of this kind, using different strategies for different cases. Our proposed framework could also be useful in risk management planning during drug development.
\n \n\n \n \n