To revise the 2010 consensus guideline on chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Seventeen disease experts, a patient representative, and two Cochrane methodologists constructed 12 Population/Intervention/Comparison/

Objective To revise the 2010 consensus guideline on chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Methods Seventeen disease experts, a patient representative, and two Cochrane methodologists constructed 12 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome (PICO) questions regarding diagnosis and treatment to guide the literature search. Data were extracted and summarized in GRADE summary of findings (for treatment PICOs) or evidence tables (for diagnostic PICOs). Results Statements were prepared according to the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision frameworks. Typical CIDP and CIDP variants were distinguished. The previous term “atypical CIDP” was replaced by “CIDP variants” because these are well characterized entities (multifocal, focal, distal, motor, or sensory CIDP). The levels of diagnostic certainty were reduced from three (definite, probable, possible CIDP) to only two (CIDP and possible CIDP), because the diagnostic accuracy of criteria for probable and definite CIDP did not significantly differ. Good Practice Points were formulated for supportive criteria and investigations to be considered to diagnose CIDP. The principal treatment recommendations were: (a) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or corticosteroids are strongly recommended as initial treatment in typical CIDP and CIDP variants; (b) plasma exchange is strongly recommended if IVIg and corticosteroids are ineffective; (c) IVIg should be considered as first‐line treatment in motor CIDP (Good Practice Point); (d) for maintenance treatment, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulin or corticosteroids are recommended; (e) if the maintenance dose of any of these is high, consider either combination treatments or adding an immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory drug (Good Practice Point); and (f) if pain is present, consider drugs against neuropathic pain and multidisciplinary management (Good Practice Point).

ObjectivesThe present study investigated (1) trends in the prevalence and incidence of knee osteoarthritis over a 20-year period (1996–2015); (2) trends in multimorbidity and (3) trends in drug prescriptions.DesignRegistry-based study.SettingPrimary healthcare, Flanders, Belgium.ParticipantsData were collected from Intego, a general practice-based morbidity registration network. In the study period between 1996 and 2015, data from 440 140 unique patients were available.Outcome measuresTrends in prevalence and incidence rate of knee osteoarthritis were computed using joinpoint regression analysis. The mean disease count was calculated to assess trends in multimorbidity. In addition, the number of drug prescriptions was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification code and trends were equally recorded with joinpoint regression.ResultsThe total age-standardised prevalence of knee osteoarthritis increased from 2.0% in 1996 to 3.6% in 2015. An upward trend was observed with an average annual percentage change (AAPC) of 2.5 (95% CI 2.2 to 2.9). In 2015, the prevalence rates in the 10 year age groups from the 45–54 years age group onwards were 3.1%, 5.6%, 9.0% and 13.9%, to reach 15.0% in people aged 85 years and older. The incidence remained stable with 3.75‰ in 2015 (AAPC=−0.5, 95% CI −1.4 to 0.5). The mean disease count significantly increased from 1.63 to 2.34 (p<0.001) for incident cases with knee osteoarthritis. Finally, we observed a significantly positive trend in the overall prescription of acetaminophen (AAPC=6.7, 95% CI 5.6 to 7.7), weak opioids (AAPC=4.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 7.3) and glucosamine (AAPC=8.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 15.1). Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were most prescribed, with a prevalence rate of 29.8% in 2015, but remained stable during the study period (AAPC=0.0, 95% CI −1.1 to 1.1).ConclusionsIncreased prevalence, multimorbidity, and number of drug prescriptions confirm an increased burden of knee osteoarthritis. In future, these trends can be used to prioritise initiatives for improvement in care.

In this systematic literature review, predominantly positive economic impacts of integrated care models for patients with chronic diseases were found.

Clinical question What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? Current practice Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. Recommendation The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. How this guideline was created An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. The evidence This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. Understanding the recommendation The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.