Recommendations for the management of MPS VI: systematic evidence- and consensus-based guidance.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akyol Mehmet Umut, Alden Tord D, Amartino Hernan, Ashworth Jane, Belani Kumar, Berger Kenneth I, Borgo Andrea, Braunlin Elizabeth, Eto Yoshikatsu, Gold Jeffrey I, Jester Andrea, Jones Simon A, Karsli Cengiz, Mackenzie William, Marinho Diane Ruschel, McFadyen Andrew, McGill Jim, Mitchell John J, Muenzer Joseph, Okuyama Torayuki, Orchard Paul J, Stevens Bob, Thomas Sophie, Walker Robert, Wynn Robert, Giugliani Roberto, Harmatz Paul, Hendriksz Christian, Scarpa Maurizio, MPS Consensus Programme Steering Committee, MPS Consensus Programme Co-Chairs
Аннотация
METHODS: 26 international healthcare professionals from various disciplines, all with expertise in managing MPS VI, and three patient advocates formed the Steering Committee group (SC) and contributed to the development of this guidance. Members from six Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) acted as advisors and attended interviews to ensure representation of the patient perspective. A modified-Delphi methodology was used to demonstrate consensus among a wider group of healthcare professionals with expertise and experience managing patients with MPS VI and the manuscript has been evaluated against the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument by three independent reviewers.
RESULTS: A total of 93 guidance statements were developed covering five domains: (1) general management principles; (2) recommended routine monitoring and assessments; (3) enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); (4) interventions to support respiratory and sleep disorders; (5) anaesthetics and surgical interventions. Consensus was reached on all statements after two rounds of voting. The greatest challenges faced by patients as relayed by consultation with PAGs were deficits in endurance, dexterity, hearing, vision and respiratory function. The overall guideline AGREE II assessment score obtained for the development of the guidance was 5.3/7 (where 1 represents the lowest quality and 7 represents the highest quality of guidance).
CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the management of patients with MPS VI and is for use by healthcare professionals that manage the holistic care of patients with the intention to improve clinical- and patient-reported outcomes and enhance patient quality of life. It is recognised that the guidance provided represents a point in time and further research is required to address current knowledge and evidence gaps.