Introductie gadoliniumdepositie
Disclaimer: This narrative review has been written by members of the Guideline Development Group so that non-specialized readers can follow the Modules about Hypersensitivity more easily. It was not part of the actual guideline process with structured literature analyses. |
Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) are routinely used in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to enhance image contrast and thereby improving detection and characterization of lesions. These agents exploit the highly paramagnetic nature of gadolinium (Gd), which alters the local magnetic properties shortening both T1 and T2 of tissue leading to increased signal intensity on T1-weighted images (and reduced signal intensity on T2-weighted images) (Elster, 2021). Since their introduction in 1988, an estimate of 700 million doses have been delivered and the current (end of 2021) estimated use is 50 million doses per year (Balzer, 2017; Endrikat, 2018, McDonald, 2018; Bayer AG estimates based on various internal and external data, 2022). Overall, 30--45% of the MRI scans have used GBCAs, with high contributions in current sales by Neuroradiology (~40%) and Cardiovascular Radiology (~20%) (Bayer AG estimates, based on various internal and external data, 2022).
1. Gadolinium Physicochemistry
Gadolinium and relaxivity
Gadolinium (Gd; Z = 64 and MW = 157,25 g/mol) is a rare earth metal from the Lanthanide family of elements in the periodic system. It has seven unpaired electrons in its 4f orbitals, has a high magnetic moment, and a very long electron spin relaxation time (Caravan, 1999; Hao, 2012; Lin, 2007).
The efficiency of T1-weighted contrast agents in aqueous solutions is determined by its relaxivity (R1 = 1 / T1). The relaxivity is determined by relaxation effects of water molecules interacting directly with the paramagnetic ion (inner sphere) and interactions with closely diffusing water molecules without interacting with the M-L complex (outer sphere).
For clinical GBCA 60% of relaxivity comes from inner sphere effects and 40% from outer sphere effects. Chelated gadolinium complexes are monohydrated (Gd(H2O)3+), as in their spherical configuration there is only enough space around the gadolinium for one (inner sphere) water molecule that exchanges rapidly with other nearby water molecules (outer sphere) (De Leon-Rodriguez, 2015).
Gadolinium chelation and stability constants
In biological systems, unchelated Gd3+ ions are toxic because the ion has an ionic radius (107,8 pm) close to the ionic radius of Ca2+ (114 pm) and can bind to Ca2+ ion channels and Ca2+-dependent proteins such as metalloenzymes or messenger proteins like calmodulin or calexitin.
To suppress this potential toxicity, the Gd3+ ions must be tightly bound to an organic ligand to form a metal-ligand (ML) complex or chelate. The ligand will reduce toxicity, change the tissue distribution, and influence relaxivity. In the current European situation, such ligands are macrocyclic (DOTA, BT-DO3A or HP-DO3A) or linear (BOPTA or EOB-DTPA) (Supplemental Table S2).
Normally, equilibrium exists for the reaction between metal M and ligand L. The reaction can be written as: (M) + (L) ↔ (ML)
The stability of the Gadolinium-ligand complex can be described by a number of constants.
The logarithm of the thermodynamic stability constant Ktherm describes the affinity of Gd for the ligand and is normally measured at pH = 14. Higher values imply a higher stability. Ktherm = (ML) / (M) · (L).
For biological systems more appropriate is the logarithm of the apparent or conditional thermodynamic stability constant Kcond, which considers the total concentration of the free ligand, including all its protonation states. It characterizes the affinity of Gadolinium for ligand in aqueous media under physiologic conditions (pH = 7,4). In all GBCA the conditional stability is substantially lower than the thermodynamic stability. Kcond = (ML) / (M) · {(L) + (HL) + (H2L) +......... }
The kinetic stability describes the kinetic rate of the dissociation of the Gadolinium-Ligand complex. It is closely related to the thermodynamic stability and is commonly described as the half-life of the dissociation of the Gd-Ligand complex or by the observed dissociation constant kobs. To be measurable, such kinetic analyses are done under acidic conditions at pH =1 (Port, 2008). Dissociation rate = kobs (ML).
Some commercial solutions of contrast media contain variable amounts of free ligands or calcium complexes to ensure chelation of any free Gd3+ or other metal traces from the vial during its shelf life. This amount is often used as indirect indicator of the instability of the compound.
The thermodynamic stability constants are a measure of how much uncomplexed Gd3+ will be released in biologic tissues if the system reaches equilibrium. In vivo, such new thermodynamic equilibrium is usually not reached as most of the complex is excreted long before any uncomplexed gadolinium can be released. Therefore, the kinetic stability is in vivo much more important than the thermodynamic stability.
Transmetallation
Transmetallation is the exchange between Gd3+ and other metal ions M+ that have greater affinity for the chelate. The amount of transmetallation depends on the stability of the chelating ligand. Gadolinium ions can be removed from the Gd-ligand complex by several endogenous positively charged ions like Zn2+, Cu2+, and Ca2+ whereby Gd3+ is released, while endogenous negatively charged ions like PO43- and CO32- can compete with the free ligand to form insoluble toxic Gd3+ compounds like GdPO4 or Gd2(CO3)3 (Idee, 2006).
Transmetallation can be described by the reaction: (Gd-L) + (M+) ↔ Gd3+ + (ML)
Of the most frequently described stability constants, a high kinetic stability is regarded as the most important to minimize transmetallation. Since the stability of the macrocyclic Gd chelates is much more limited by the slow release of Gd3+ from the complex, the kinetic stability is more important in such ligands.
The main physicochemistry and stability data of current GBCA are summarized in Supplemental Table S2.
Biodistribution and Elimination (see Module 10.1 for more details)
After intravenous administration, the GBCA is excreted by the kidneys with an early elimination half-life of about 1.5 h in patients with normal renal function. More than 90% of the injected GBCA is cleared from the body within 12 h. This early excretion phase is similar for linear and macrocyclic GBCA.
In patients with severely reduced renal function (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2) this elimination half-life for GBCA can increase up to 18-34 h (Joffe, 2008). During that time there is a potential for transmetallation with an increased release of free Gd3+ ions (Aime, 2009).
Recent systematic review of pharmacokinetic analysis revealed a deep compartment of distribution with long-lasting residual excretion. This long-lasting excretion is faster for macrocyclic compared to linear GBCA, correlated to the higher thermodynamic stability and differences in transmetallation. In addition, bone residence time for macrocyclic GBCA (up to 30 days) was much shorter than for linear GBCA (up to 2,5 years) (Lancelot, 2016).
2. Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain and Body (See Module 4.2.2 for update 2022)
A. Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain
Clinical studies
In 2014, it was suggested that the retrospectively observed hyperintensity of the dentate nucleus and the globus pallidus relative to the pons (dentate nucleus to pons (DNP) ratio) on unenhanced T1-weighted images of a population of patients with brain tumours, was related to repeated administrations of linear GBCAs (Kanda, 2014). Almost simultaneously, another group reported similar findings on unenhanced T1-weighted brain images after multiple injections of gadodiamide in patients with multiple sclerosis and patients with brain metastases (Errante, 2014).
After these initial reports, a multitude of retrospective studies have found increased SI in the dentate nucleus and or globus pallidus for linear GBCA. No such increases were found for macrocyclic GBCA, even after large doses (Radbruch, 2015 and 2017; Ramalho, 2016). In a recent systematic review of these studies by the ESMRMB Gadolinium Research Evaluation Committee (now ESMRMB-GREC) it was shown that there was large variety in sequence type and evaluation methodologies (Quattrocchi, 2019).
One of the biggest problems is that increased SI ratios at unenhanced T1-weighted MRI are a poor biomarker for gadolinium deposition, as SI ratios do not have linear relationship with Gd concentration and are highly dependent on the MRI parameters used during acquisition. Absolute signal intensity (expressed in arbitrary units) in MRI depends on many MRI parameters such as field strength, sequence type/parameters, coil sensitivity/filling factor, coil tuning/matching drift, etc. Since little is known about which forms of gadolinium are present (speciation), signal intensities, or changes thereof, will not reflect true changes in gadolinium content (McDonald, 2018; Quattrocchi, 2019).
Preclinical studies
Preclinical studies in rat brains have highlighted the importance of in vivo dechelation of Gd3+ ions from less stable GBCAs, regardless of the presence of a renal dysfunction and with a clear dose-effect relationship. All quantities were in the nmol per gram tissue range. They have also shown that differences exist in the amount of total gadolinium retained in the brain when comparing different GBCA compounds (Jost, 2016; Robert, 2015 and 2017; Smith, 2017).
To date it is unclear what forms are responsible for the T1w signal increase (gadolinium speciation). Recently, it was shown that for gadolinium in the rat brain 3 different chemical forms must be distinguished: intact chelate, gadolinium bound to macromolecules, and insoluble gadolinium salts (Frenzel, 2017). The intact chelates were found for both linear and macrocyclic GBCA, but the other forms only for linear GBCA. As precipitated gadolinium does not induce any change in MRI signal when excitated, it is likely that the gadolinium bound to macromolecules is responsible for the visible T1w hyperintensity in clinical MRI (Gianolio, 2017).
Well-conducted long-term animal studies demonstrated that for linear GBCA a large portion of gadolinium was retained in the brain, with binding of soluble gadolinium to macromolecules. For macrocyclic GBCA only traces of the intact chelated gadolinium were present with complete washout in time (Jost, 2019; Robert, 2018).
Intact GBCA does not cross the intact blood-brain barrier. It is now believed that GBCA can reach the CSF via the choroid plexus and ciliary body and can reach the brain interstitium via the glympathic system along perineural sheaths and perivascular spaces of penetrating cortical arteries. GBCA distributed into the cerebrospinal fluid cavity via the glymphatic system may remain in the eye or brain tissue for a longer duration compared to the GBCA in systemic circulation. The glympathic system may be responsible for deposition in linear GBCA as well as for GBCA clearance (Deike-Hofmann, 2019; Taoka, 2018).
B. Gadolinium Deposition in the Body
Most data mentioned below are all from preclinical studies in animals.
Gadolinium deposition in bone
Lanthanide metals (gadolinium, samarium, europium, and cerium) have long been known to deposit in bone tissue and have effects on osteoblasts and osteoclasts, but the exact mechanisms are not yet well understood (Vidaud, 2012).
Gadolinium deposits have been found in samples of bone tissues of humans at higher concentrations than in brain tissue after administration of linear and macrocyclic GBCA, whereby linear GBCA deposit 4 to 25 times more than macrocyclic GBCA (Darrah, 2009; Murata, 2016; White, 2006; Wang, 2015).
The bone residence time for macrocyclic GBCA (up to 30 days) is much shorter than for linear GBCA (up to 8 years) (Darrah, 2009; Lancelot, 2016). Bone may serve as a storage compartment from which Gd is later released in the body (Thakral, 2007). It is postulated that the long-term reservoir of gadolinium in bones might implicate that some patients with high bone turnover, such as menopausal women and patients with osteoporosis may be more vulnerable to gadolinium deposition (Darrah, 2009).
Gadolinium deposition in skin
Gadolinium depositions in skin have been demonstrated ever since the association of GBCA with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in 2006. See also section on NSF.
In skin biopsies of NSF patients, gadolinium was found along collagen bundles but also as insoluble apatite-like deposits, suggesting dechelation (Sieber, 2009; Thakral, 2009). After linear GBCA, gadolinium deposits were found up to 40-180 times more frequently than after macrocyclic GBCA, histologic changes are more extensive, and products of dechelation of GBCA can be found (Haylor, 2012; Wang, 2015).
Recently, gadolinium has also been found in the skin of patients with normal renal function after high cumulative GBCA doses (Roberts, 2016). With normal renal function even a case of ‘gadolinium-associated plaques’ has been described, which suggest that gadolinium deposition in the skin after linear GBCA might give clinically relevant symptoms (Gathings, 2015).
Gadolinium deposition in other organs
Thus far, little is published about the effects of gadolinium deposition in other organs.
In a clinical study in the liver, gadolinium deposits have been associated with iron overload in the livers of paediatric stem cell transplantation patients with normal renal function, reacting well to iron dechelation therapy (Maximova, 2016).
Based on animal studies, it has been suggested that residual Gd is also present in tissues samples of kidney, liver, spleen, and testis (Celiker, 2018 and 2019; Di Gregorio, 2018; McDonald, 2017; Mercantepe, 2018; Tweedle, 1995; Wang, 2015) While deposition in the brain was only 2 to 7 μg Gd, the amounts in other organs varied 168 to 2134 μg Gd for kidney, 16 to 388 μg Gd for liver, and 18 to 354 μg Gd for spleen, all per gram of tissue. In all tissues the level was highest for the linear GBCA gadodiamide (McDonald, 2017).
Self-reported clinical symptoms
Thus far, gadolinium deposition has not been associated with clinical symptoms, except for NSF. Small online gadolinium toxicity support groups in USA have claimed that their members have manifested symptoms analogous to NSF and have prolonged excretion of Gd in urine following administration of GBCA. Surveys have shown variable symptoms that occur either directly or within 6 weeks of GBCA administration. Most reported symptoms are burning sensation and bone pain in lower arms and limbs, central torso pain, headache with vision/hearing changes, and skin thickening and discoloration (Burke, 2016; Semelka, 2016).
This complex of symptoms was coined “gadolinium deposition disease (GDD)”. The critical findings are the presence of gadolinium in the body beyond 30 days, combined with at least 3 of the following features, with onset after the administration of GBCA: i) central torso pain,
ii) headache and clouded mentation, iii) peripheral leg and arm pain, iv) peripheral leg and arm thickening and discoloration, and v) bone pain (Semelka, 2016).
Significant differences in gadolinium levels in bone and urine have been observed between individuals experiencing symptoms and those who are not (Lord, 2018). A large study with a control population found more new symptoms within 24 h after exposure to GBCA than after unenhanced MRI. From the GDD-like symptoms, only fatigue and mental confusion were more frequently reported after enhanced MRI, questioning the term GDD (Parillo, 2019).
3. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) ruling
In many European countries, the described association between NSF and exposure to linear GBCAs in 2006 has resulted in the fact that most hospitals switched early (2007 and onwards) to macrocyclic GBCA use only, in most cases gadoterate or gadobutrol. After the series of publications describing increased signal intensities in the brain nuclei on unenhanced T1-weighted imaging after multiple linear GBCA exposures and post-mortem studies revealing the presence of small amounts of gadolinium in neural tissues, the EMA instituted an article 31 procedure. Eventually, this led to the withdrawal of EU market authorizations of the high-risk linear GBCA gadodiamide and gadoversetamide, as well as restrictions on the use of gadopentetate (MR Arthrography only) and, gadobenate (liver imaging only) (Dekkers, 2018; EMA, 2017). Therefore, for general use in MRI only macrocyclic GBCA are available, while the linear GBCA gadoxetate and gadobenate are available for liver-specific MRI.
Gadolinium metabolism and deposition still has many knowledge gaps for which an international research agenda is important. The ACR/NIH/RSNA Meeting 2018 has made a good inventory where future research should be aimed at (McDonald, 2018).
Verantwoording
Autorisatiedatum en geldigheid
Laatst beoordeeld : 28-11-2022
Laatst geautoriseerd :
Geplande herbeoordeling :
Validity
The Radiological Society of the Netherlands (NVvR) will determine around 2027 if this guideline (per module) is still valid and applicable. If necessary, the scientific societies will form a new guideline group to revise the guideline. The validity of a guideline can be shorter than 5 years, if new scientific or healthcare structure developments arise, that could be a reason to commence revisions. The Radiological Society of the Netherlands is the owner of this guideline and thus primarily responsible for the actuality of the guideline. Other scientific societies that have participated in the guideline development share the responsibility to inform the primarily responsible scientific society about relevant developments in their field.
Algemene gegevens
General Information
The Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (www.kennisinstituut.nl) assisted the guideline development group. The guideline was financed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgelden Medisch Specialisten (SKMS) which is a quality fund for medical specialists in The Netherlands.
Samenstelling werkgroep
Guideline development group (GDG)
A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed for the development of the guideline in 2020. The GDG consisted of representatives from all relevant medical specialization fields which were using intravascular contrast administration in their field.
All GDG members have been officially delegated for participation in the GDG by their scientific societies. The GDG has developed a guideline in the period from June 2020 until November 2022. The GDG is responsible for the complete text of this guideline.
Guideline development group
- Dekkers I.A. (Ilona), clinical epidemiologist and radiologist, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
- Geenen R.W.F. (Remy), radiologist, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar
- Kerstens M.N. (Michiel), internist-endocrinologist, University Medical Centre Groningen
- Krabbe J.G. (Hans), clinical chemist-endocrinologist, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede
- Rossius M.J.P. (Mariska), radiologist, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam
- Uyttenboogaart M. (Maarten), neurologist and neuro-interventionalist, University Medical Centre Groningen
- van de Luijtgaarden K.M. (Koen), vascular surgeon, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam
- van der Molen A.J. (Aart), chair guideline development group, radiologist, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
- van der Wolk S.L. (Sabine), gynaecologist-obstetrician, Haga Ziekenhuis, Den Haag
- van de Ven A.A.J.M. (Annick), internist-allergologist-immunologist, University Medical Centre Groningen (until 1.7.2022)
- van der Houwen, T.B. (Tim), internist-allergologist-immunologist, Amsterdam University Medical Center (from 1.7.2022)
Invited experts
- van Maaren M.S. (Maurits), internist-allergologist-immunologist, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam
Belangenverklaringen
Conflicts of interest
The GDG members have provided written statements about (financially supported) relations with commercial companies, organisations or institutions that were related to the subject matter of the guideline. Furthermore, inquiries have been made regarding personal financial interests, interests due to personal relationships, interests related to reputation management, interest related to externally financed research and interests related to knowledge valorisation. The statements on conflict of interest can be requested from the administrative office of Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl) and were summarised below.
Last name |
Function |
Other positions |
Personal financial interests |
Personal relations |
Reputation management |
Externally financed research |
Knowledge valorisation |
Other interests |
Signed |
Actions |
Dekkers IA |
Radiologist, LUMC |
Clinical Epidemiologist
Member of contrast media safety committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (no payment)
Member, Gadolinium Research and Education Committee, European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and Biology (no payment) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Received consultancy fees from Guerbet, 2019- 2022 |
July 24th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022 |
No restrictions: received in part 3 of the guideline speaker fees, but this guideline does not mention specific medication, not of working mechanism, nor of side effects. |
Geenen RWF |
Radiologist, Noordwest ziekenhuisgroep /Medisch specialisten Noordwest |
Member of contrast media safety committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (no payment) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
April 11th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Houwen T, van der |
Internist - Immunologist - Allergologist, Amsterdam UMC, also seconded allergologist in Huid Medisch Centrum |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
July 11th, 2022 Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Kerstens MN |
Internist- endocrinologist, UMCG |
Chairman Bijniernet (no payment) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
July 1st, 2020, reaffirmed October 25th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Krabbe JG |
Clinical chemist, Medisch Spectrum Twente |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
September 1st, 2020, Reaffirmed October 13th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Luijtgaarden KM, van de |
Vascular surgeon, Maasland Ziekenhuis |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
August 1st, 2020, reaffirmed October 26th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Molen AJ, van der |
Radiologist LUMC |
Member of contrast media safety committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (no payment)
Member, Gadolinium Research and Education Committee, European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and Biology (no payment) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Received consultancy fees from Guerbet, 2019- 2022 |
July, 24th, 2020 Reaffirmed October 12th, 2022 |
No restrictions: received in part 3 of the guideline speaker fees, but this guideline does not mention Specific medication, not of working mechanism, nor of side effects. |
Rossius MJP |
Radiologist Erasmus Medical Centre |
Medical coordinator (no payment) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
April 7th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 13th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Uyttenboogaart M |
Neurologist and neuro- interventionalist UMCG |
Advisor International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapist / Nederlandse Vereniging Manuele Therapie |
No |
No |
Subsidy Hart Stichting for CONTRAST (Consortium of New Treatments in Acute Stroke): WP8 Stroke logistics and Epidemiology: financing of 2 PhD students by the Hart Stichting / PPS Allowance |
Work package leader CONTRAST (Consortium of New Treatments in Acute Stroke): WP8 Stroke logistics and Epidemiology |
No |
No |
June 30th, 2020, reaffirmed October 26th, 2022 |
No restrictions: the CONTRAST consortium wp8 is only about organisation and treatment of stroke. Stroke is not in this guideline. |
Ven AAJM, van de |
Internist- allergologist- immunologist, UMCG |
Education and research related to work as internist- allergist |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
April 7th, 2020, Reaffirmed October 19th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Wolk S, van der |
Gynaecologist- obstetrician, Haga Ziekenhuis |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
June 30th, 2021, reaffirmed October 25th, 2022 |
No restrictions |
Inbreng patiëntenperspectief
Input of patient’s perspective
The guideline does not address a specific adult patient group, but a diverse set of diagnoses. Therefore, it was decided to invite a broad spectrum of patient organisations for the stakeholder consultation. The stakeholder consultation was performed at the beginning of the process for feedbacking on the framework of subjects and clinical questions addressed in the guideline, and during the commentary phase to provide feedback on the concept guideline. The list of organisations which were invited for the stakeholder consultation can be requested from the Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl). In addition, patient information on safe use of contrast media in pregnancy and lactation was developed for Thuisarts.nl, a platform to inform patients about health and disease.
Implementatie
Implementation
During different phases of guideline development, implementation and practical enforceability of the guideline were considered. The factors that could facilitate or hinder the introduction of the guideline in clinical practice have been explicitly considered. The implementation plan can be found in the ‘Appendices to modules’. Furthermore, quality indicators were developed to enhance the implementation of the guideline. The indicators can also be found in the ‘Appendices to modules’.
Werkwijze
Methodology
AGREE
This guideline has been developed conforming to the requirements of the report of Guidelines for Medical Specialists 2.0 by the advisory committee of the Quality Counsel (www.kwaliteitskoepel.nl). This report is based on the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) (www.agreetrust.org), a broadly accepted instrument in the international community and based on the national quality standards for guidelines: “Guidelines for guidelines” (www.zorginstituutnederland.nl).
Identification of subject matter
During the initial phase of the guideline development, the GDG identified the relevant subject matter for the guideline. The framework is consisted of both new matters, which were not yet addressed in part 1 and 2 of the guideline, and an update of matters that were subject to modification (for example in case of new published literature). Furthermore, a stakeholder consultation was performed, where input on the framework was requested.
Clinical questions and outcomes
The outcome of the stakeholder consultation was discussed with the GDG, after which definitive clinical questions were formulated. Subsequently, the GDG formulated relevant outcome measures (both beneficial and harmful effects). The GDG rated the outcome measures as critical, important and of limited importance (GRADE method). Furthermore, where applicable, the GDG defined relevant clinical differences.
Search and select
For clinical questions, specific search strategies were formulated, and scientific articles published in several electronic databases were searched. First, the studies that potentially had the highest quality of research were reviewed. The GDG selected literature in pairs (independently of each other) based on the title and abstract. A second selection was performed by the methodological advisor based on full text. The databases used, selection criteria and number of included articles can be found in the modules, the search strategy in the appendix.
Quality assessment of individual studies
Individual studies were systematically assessed, based on methodological quality criteria that were determined prior to the search. For systematic reviews, a combination of the AMSTAR checklist and PRISMA checklist was used. For RCTs the Cochrane risk of bias tool and suggestions by the CLARITY Group at McMaster University were used, and for cohort studies/observational studies the risk of bias tool by the CLARITY Group at McMaster University was used. The risk of bias tables can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules.
Summary of literature
The relevant research findings of all selected articles were shown in evidence tables. The evidence tables can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules. The most important findings in literature were described in literature summaries. When there were enough similarities between studies, the study data were pooled.
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
The strength of the conclusions of the included studies was determined using the GRADE- method. GRADE stands for Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (see http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) (Atkins, 2004). GRADE defines four levels for the quality of scientific evidence: high, moderate, low, or very low. These levels provide information about the certainty level of the literature conclusions (http://www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook).
The evidence was summarized in the literature analysis, followed by one or more conclusions, drawn from the body of evidence. The level of evidence for the conclusions can be found above the conclusions. Aspects such as expertise of GDG members, local expertise, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities and organisation of healthcare aspects are important to consider when formulating a recommendation. These aspects are discussed in the paragraph justifications. The recommendations provide an answer to the clinical question or help to increase awareness and were based on the available scientific evidence and the most relevant justifications.
Appendices
Internal (meant for use by scientific society or its members) quality indicators were developed with the guideline and can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules. In most cases, indicators were not applicable. For most questions, additional scientific research on the subject is warranted. Therefore, the GDG formulated knowledge gaps to aid in future research, which can be found in the separate document Appendices to modules.
Commentary and authorisation phase
The concept guideline was subjected to commentaries by the involved scientific societies. The list of parties that participated in the commentary phase can be requested from the Kennisinstituut van de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (secretariaat@kennisinstituut.nl). The commentaries were collected and discussed with the GDG. The feedback was used to improve the guideline; afterwards the GDG made the guideline definitive. The final version of the guideline was offered to the involved scientific societies for authorization and was authorized.
Literature
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010; 182(18): E839-E842.
Medisch Specialistische Richtlijnen 2.0. Adviescommissie Richtlijnen van de Raad Kwaliteit, 2012. Available at: [URL].
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available at: [URL].
Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106- 1110. Erratum published in: BMJ 2008;336(7654).
Ontwikkeling van Medisch Specialistische Richtlijnen: stappenplan. Kennisinstituut van Medisch Specialisten, 2020.