Clinical Practice Guidelines Should Include Patient’s Preferences
Clinicians want to provide excellent patient care without having to appraise every new study in their field, but producing the “authoritative, instructive resource for most clinical scenarios” is not as straightforward as it would seem, according to David Garcia, MD, professor, University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.
At a special symposium on quality care and clinical practice guidelines during ASH, Garcia discussed the challenges of guideline development and emphasized the need to include the preferences of patients, whose lives are impacted by these guidelines.
“Our job is to apply evidence and guideline recommendations within the context of individual patient preferences and values, and these can never be predicted or accounted for by people writing the guidelines,” he said.
Consider the Patients
The best guidelines are based on “strong evidence,” and the proper ingredients of a “strong recommendation” are 2-fold: the inclusion of high-quality evidence that proves the impact on important clinical outcomes, as opposed to surrogate outcomes that may not matter to the patient; and the demonstration that any risks associated with the intervention are clearly outweighed by benefits, he said.
“These seem obvious, but as physicians we may not always predict accurately what the patient sees as being worthwhile in terms of the risks they are willing to accept for the benefits we can offer,” Garcia said.
Future guideline writers need to focus on patient-important (not surrogate) outcomes whenever possible, he suggested, and to be equipped with better knowledge about how patients view the trade-offs associated with treatment options.
For decades, healthcare professionals have worked diligently to teach individuals that screening is a valuable tool for preventing and detecting cancer. This has not been an easy mission, and nurses and physicians have had to debunk the myths, bias, and misinformation that deter patients from getting screened annually or according to specific guidelines set forth by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society (ACS). Although clinicians have been telling their patients—and the population at large—not to put off cancer screening because it saves lives, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March of this year, the dialogue changed.
Less Is More: 6 Months of Trastuzumab Treatment Equivalent to 12 Months in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
Analysis of the phase 3 randomized clinical trial PERSEPHONE showed that 6 months of treatment with trastuzumab was noninferior to 12 months in terms of disease-free survival, whereas a shorter course of trastuzumab was associated with a 50% reduction in cardiotoxicity.