C0009 NRP® Current Issues Seminar: Monumental Changes on the Horizon

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Process for Evidence

Based Review and the Role of Public Comment

Myra H. Wyckoff, MDUT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

Co-Chair of ILCOR Neonatal Task Force 2016-2020

Faculty Disclosure Information

In the past 12 months, I have no relevant financial relationships with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial

product(s) and/or provider(s) of commercial services discussed in this CME activity.

I do not intend to discuss an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device in my presentation.

Objectives Understand the purpose of ILCOR Understand how PICO questions are identified and refined for

systematic review Identify components of the GRADE process that is used by

ILCOR for systematic reviews Understand where to find the systematic reviews on the AHA

ILCOR website Understand the role of public comment when the systematic

reviews are posted

Achieving Consensus on Resuscitation Science

Since 2000, the AAP with the American Heart Association, participates with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) for a complete review of resuscitation science every 5 years.

23 new questions reviewed for 2015

AustralianResuscitation

Council

ILCOR 2015 Neonatal Working Group

Guidelines for Neonatal Resuscitation

New Consensus on Science and Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines available online since October 14, 2015

Printed Guidelines supplement published in Circulation, Resuscitation and in Pediatrics

Download at: www.heart.org/cpr

NRP Guidelines are set by the AAP NRP Steering Committee

NRP 7th Edition will rollout in Spring 2016

Ask An Answerable Question

Development of clear, important questions for which to search for evidence is paramount

PICO format– Patient (the exact population)– Intervention (usually experimental group)– Comparator (usually the usual practice or a placebo)– Outcome (impact on what)

ILCOR Evaluation Process Identify and develop the PICO questions that need scientific review

– May have to be refined after initial evidence search– Rank Outcomes of interest for importance

– Examples: Time to return of Heart Rate > 100 bpm Survival Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 2-3 years of age Temperature on Admission Need for Intubation

ILCOR Evaluation Process Prioritize the questions and assign reviewers

– Resources are finite (Particularly TIME!!!)

Minimum requirements for every search strategy are specified and done by professional librarians– Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews

– Hand searches

EndNote reference software and access to a resuscitation reference library

Every reviewer rates the level and quality of evidence using a standardized evidence evaluation (GRADE system).

Understanding GRADE GRADE: Most widely used method for appraising studies to be included in systematic reviews and guidelines

– Recommended by Institute of Medicine-to give a common process and language for published guidelines

GRADE is a method used by systematic reviewers and guideline developers to assess– the quality of evidence– Decide whether to recommend an intervention

Grade is different from other appraisal tools because it– Separates quality of evidence and strength of recommendation– The quality of evidence is assessed for each outcome of interest– Observational studies can be “up-graded” if they meet certain criteria

Using GRADE Step 1:

– Assign an a priori ranking of ‘high’ to randomized controlled trials and ‘low’ to observational studies.

– Randomized trials are initially assigned a higher grade because they are usually less prone to bias than observational studies

Using GRADE Step 2:

– ‘Downgrade’ or ‘upgrade’ initial ranking. It is common for randomized controlled trials and observational studies

to be downgraded because they suffer from identifiable bias. Also, observational studies can be upgraded when multiple high-quality

studies show consistent results.

Reasons to Down Grade in Step 2 Risk of Bias

– Lack of clearly randomized allocation sequence– Lack of blinding– Lack of allocation concealment– Failure to adhere to intention to treat analysis

Keeps folks from switching to the treatment they “believe” is best

– Large losses due to follow-up Exaggerates effect size. There is a positive bias conferred when participants benefitting from the treatment are more

likely to stay in the trial

Other Reasons to Down Grade in Step 2 Inconsistency

– Variability in results from different trials

– Hard to tell if benefits outweigh the harms

Indirectness– Population studied is not exactly the population we want to apply the data to

– Outcome that is available in the literature is not exactly the outcome we care about

Other Reasons to Down Grade in Step 2 Imprecision

– When wide confidence intervals mar the quality of the data

Publication Bias– When ‘negative’ findings remain unpublished.

Reasons to Up Grade in Step 2 Large Effect

– When the effect is so large that bias common to observational studies cannot possibly account for the result

Dose-response relationship– When the response is proportional to the degree of exposure

GRADE Step 3 Step 3: Assign final grade for the quality of evidence as…

– ‘high’: We are very confident that the effect in the studies reflects the actual effect

– ‘moderate’: We are quite confident that the effect in the studies is close to the true effect, but it is also possible it is substantially different

– ‘low’: The true effect may differ significantly from the estimate

– ‘very low’: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect

GRADE Step 4 Step 4: Consider other factors that impact on the strength of the

recommendation for a course of action– Balance between desirable and undesirable effects

– In cases where the benefit to harm ratio are less clear, then patient values and preferences, as well as costs need to be carefully considered

GRADE Step 5 Step 5: Make a strong or weak recommendation

– For or against

GRADE Unless the recommendation is based on moderate

or strong evidence….– We need to be advocating for more research– The recommendations should not “squelch” research

An Example ILCOR Evidence Review Using the GRADE

System

EVREV 1: Marya Strand, MD, MS; COI#222

EVREV 1: Takahiro Sugiura, MD; COI#224

Taskforce: Neonatal

Umbilical Cord Milking(NRP #849)

COI Disclosure Marya Strand, MD, MS COI#222

– Commercial/industry None

– Potential intellectual conflicts None

Takahiro Sugiura, MD COI#224– Commercial/industry

None

– Potential intellectual conflicts None

2010 Treatment Recommendation Evidence from a single, small, randomized controlled trial (Hosono 2008)

suggest that among premature newborns (24-28 weeks gestation), milking the umbilical cord immediately after birth may decrease the need for packed red blood cells transfusions during the initial hospital stay. This single study was not adequately powered to fully assess the safety or efficacy of this intervention.

Secondary analysis of data from this small randomized trial (Hosono 2009) suggests that among premature newborns (24-28 weeks gestation), milking the umbilical cord immediately after birth may increase hemoglobin at birth, improve hemodynamic stability during the first 5 days of life, and decrease the incidence of chronic lung disease at 36 weeks postmenstrual age.

2015 PICO Population: Very

preterm infants (≤28 wks EGA)

Intervention: Umbilical cord milking

Comparison: Immediate umbilical cord clamping

Outcomes: – 9—Infant death– 8—Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2-3 years– 8—Severe Intracranial Hemorrhage– 7—All grade Intracranial Hemorrhage– 7—Cardiovascular stability (initial MBP)– 7—Temperature on admission– 6—Hematologic indices

– Initial hemoglobin, PRBC transfusion– 6—Hyperbilirubinemia

– Phototherapy, Exchange transfusion

Inclusion/Exclusion & Articles Found

Inclusions/Exclusions– Randomized or observational studies– Infants born at ≤28 weeks’ gestation

Search terms initially identified 690 potential articles

Number Included in Evidence Profile tables– RCTs: 4– non-RCTs: 1

Draft Treatment Recommendations

There is insufficient published human evidence to suggest the routine use of cord milking for infants born at less than 29 weeks of gestation but cord milking may be considered a reasonable alternative to immediate cord clamping to improve initial mean blood pressure, hematological indices and ICH. However, there is no evidence for improvement or safety in long term outcomes. (Weak recommendation, low level of evidence)

All studies included in this evidence review milked 20 cm of umbilical cord toward the umbilicus 3 times while the infant was held at the level of the introitus or below the level of the placenta prior to cord clamping.

Risk of Bias in Studies

Study Year DesignTotal

PatientsPopulation

IndustryFunding

All

oca

tio

n:

Ge

ne

rati

on

All

oca

tio

n:

Co

nce

alm

en

t

Bli

nd

ing

:

Pa

rtici

pa

nts

Bli

nd

ing

:

Ass

ess

ors

Ou

tco

me

:

Co

mp

lete

Ou

tco

me

:

Se

lecti

ve

Oth

er

Bia

s

Alan 2014 RCT 48≤32 wks &

<1500gNo Unclear Low High Unclear High Low

Hosono 2007 RCT 40 24-28 wks No Unclear Low Unclear Low Low Low

Katheria 2014 RCT 60 23-32 wks No Low Low Low Low Low Low

March 2013 RCT 75 24-28 wks No Low Low High Unclear Low Low

RCTs

Non-RCTs

Study Year DesignTotal

PatientsPopulation

IndustryFunding

Eli

gib

ilit

y

Cri

teri

a

Exp

osu

re/

Ou

tco

me

Co

nfo

un

din

g

Foll

ow

up

Takami 2012nonRCT

50<29wks &

<1250gNo High Low High High

RCTs

Outcome- Infant Death

Non-RCTs

Evidence Profile Table-Infant DeathRCTs

Non-RCT

<Severe ICH-RCT>

Outcome-Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH)

Any ICH non-RCT

Any ICH-RCT

Evidence Profile Table-ICHRCT

Non-RCT

Outcome - Hematologic IndicesInitial hemoglobin: RCT

Initial hemoglobin: non-RCT

Received transfusion: RCT

Evidence profile table -hematologic indicesRCT

Non-RCT

Proposed Consensus on Science Statements For the critical outcome of death we found low quality evidence

(downgraded for imprecision) from 3 RCTs [Hosono 2008; Katheria 2014, 1045; March 2013, 1] that there is no difference in death (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25-2.29).

We did not identify any evidence to address the critical outcome of “neurologic outcome at 2-3 years”.

For the critical outcome of cardiovascular stability we found low quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) from 2 studies [Hosono 2008; Katheria 2014] that the initial mean blood pressure was 5.43 mm Hg higher (1.98-8.87 mm Hg) in the intervention group.

Proposed Consensus on Science Statements For the important outcome of IVH, we found low quality evidence

(downgraded for imprecision) from 2 RCT studies [Hosono 2008; March 2013] of a reduction of any IVH (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.77) but no difference (from 1 study [Hosono 2008]) in severe IVH (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07-2.76).

For the important outcome of hematologic indices, we found low quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) from 2 studies [Hosono 2008; Katheria 2014] that cord milking increased the initial hemoglobin measurement (2.27 g/dl, 95% CI 1.57-2.98 g/dl) and low quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision) from 3 studies [Hosono 2008; Katheria 2014; March 2013] that cord milking decreased need for transfusion (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.09-0.44).

Draft Treatment Recommendations We suggest against the routine use of cord milking for infants born

at less than 29 weeks of gestation but cord milking may considered a reasonable alternative to immediate cord clamping to improve initial mean blood pressure, hematological indices and ICH. However, there is no evidence for improvement or safety in long term outcomes. (Weak recommendation, low level of evidence)

All studies included in this evidence review milked 20 cm of umbilical cord toward the umbilicus 3 times while the infant was held at the level of the introitus or below the level of the placenta prior to cord clamping.

Values and Preferences Statement: In making this recommendation we place a high

value on the simplicity/economy of this intervention with no demonstrated negative outcome, acknowledging the lack of evidence regarding critical long-term outcomes.

Knowledge Gaps Specific research required

– There are insufficient subjects in the reviewed studies to make strong recommendations for or against this intervention. We need the results of several on-going international trials that are not yet completed.

– We need information on important long-term neuro-developmental outcomes

– Cord milking vs Delayed cord clamping One RCT [Rabe 2011] demonstrated similar hematologic indices

between cord milking and delayed cord clamping.

How many of you heard about the opportunity for the public to review the ILCOR Preliminary

Reviews and offer comment?

1-Yes, I heard about it!2-No, I heard nothing

The Role of Public Comment All reviews posted to the AHA SEERS website 2 weeks prior to the

Consensus Conference  The public, especially those who teach and use resuscitation skills but

were not part of the ILCOR process were encouraged to visit the SEERS home page at http://www.ilcor.org/seers to view these recommendations (and to provide feedback).

 Comments submitted by the time of the CoSTR meeting were discussed in the CoSTR debates. Public commenting was open until February 28, 2015 and was reviewed prior to finalizing wording of ILCOR CoSTR document.

How many of you went to the AHA website and posted a public comment regarding a

Neonatal ILCOR Review?

1-Yes, I did it!2-No, did not happen

ILCOR CoSTR Meeting The in-depth review for each of 23 PICO questions was completed

and presented in Dallas in Feb. 2015

Neonatal Task Force debated the evidence reviewers findings until consensus reached on wording for… – the consensus on what the available science meant– treatment recommendation– values and preferences that went into making that treatment recommendation– and knowledge gaps

This wording used to build the ILCOR CoSTR Document

Conclusions The ILCOR evidence review process is long but

results in comprehensive, meaningful review of the best science to apply to our resuscitation algorithms.

The work is never done. The ILCOR Neonatal Task Force meets this December to begin debate on the most pressing PICO questions to review for 2020.

Potential Change in Your Practice

YOU can play an important part in the process by offering public comment both regarding the PICO questions selected as well as the preliminary evidence reviews and treatment recommendations.

Public Invitation will be sent through AAP list serves including the NRP Instructor Database