PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Lipworth, Samuel
AU  - Rigby, Ishmeala
AU  - Cheng, Vincent
AU  - Bannister, Peter
AU  - Harriss, Eli
AU  - Cook, Karen
AU  - Cai, Erhui
AU  - Tattan, Mais
AU  - Epie, Terrence
AU  - Manoharan, Lakshmi
AU  - Lambe, Kate
AU  - Michelen, Melina
AU  - Gilibets, Anna Vila
AU  - Dagens, Andrew
AU  - Sigfrid, Louise
AU  - Horby, Peter
TI  - From SARS and MERS to COVID-19: a review of the quality and responsiveness of clinical management guidelines in outbreak settings
AID  - 10.1101/2021.01.12.21249654
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.01.12.21249654
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/15/2021.01.12.21249654.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/15/2021.01.12.21249654.full
AB  - Objective To assess the responsiveness and quality of clinical management guidelines (CMGs) in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 and determine whether this has improved over time.Design Rapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation.Data Sources – Google and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to 6th June 2020.This was supplemented with hand searches of national and international public health agency and infectious disease society websites as well as directly approaching clinical networks in regions where few CMGs had been identified via the primary search.Eligibility Criteria CMGs for the treatment of COVID-19/SARS/MERS providing recommendations on supportive care and/or specific treatment.Methods Data extraction was performed using a standardised form. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. Six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development.Results We included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws (only two MERS-CoV and four COVID-19 CMGs were recommended for use by both reviewers without modification) and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group at all. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Eight guidelines recommended that use of unproven agents should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Patient representatives expressed concern about the lack of engagement with them in CMG development and that these documents are not accessible to non-experts.Conclusion The quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found no evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. There is an need to strengthen the evidence base surrounding basic supportive care and develop methods to engage patients in CMG development from the beginning in outbreak settings.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020167361Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Wellcome Trust. The results presented have been obtained with the financial support of the EU FP7 project PREPARE (602525). SL is an MRC Clinical Research Training Fellow (MR/T001151/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The quality assessment and review aspect of this work did not require ethical approval. The University of Oxford ethics committee opined that the involvement of a patient group constituted patient and public involvement (PPI) and thus did not require ethical review.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRaw data has been deposited on Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13561991.v1 CMGClinical Management guidelinesSARS-CoV-1Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-1MERS-CoVMiddle East Respiratory SyndromeCoronavirus COVID-19Coronavirus Disease-19SARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2PREPAREPlatform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging EpidemicsPROSPEROInternational Prospective Register of Systematic ReviewsAGREE-IIAppraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation IIHCIDHigh Consequence Infectious DiseaseISARICInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection ConsortiumIQRInterquartile RangeNIVNon-invasive ventilationIVIntravenousRECOVERYRandomised Evaluation of COVID-19 TherapyCDCCenters for Disease Control and PreventionIDSAInfectious Diseases Society of AmericaWHOWorld Health OrganisationREMAP-CAPRandomised, Embedded, Multi-factorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired PneumoniaRCTRandomised Control TrialACTT-1Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment TrialARDSAcute Respiratory Distress Syndrome