
==== Front
BMJ Health Care Inform
BMJ Health Care Inform
bmjhci
bmjhci
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
2632-1009
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39209331
10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100869
bmjhci-2023-100869
Original Research
1506
Designing and validating a clinical decision support algorithm for diabetic nephroprotection in older patients
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7819-7064
Alsalemi Noor 12noor.alsalemi@qu.edu.qa: noor.alsalemi@umontreal.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4526-7054
Sadowski Cheryl 3cherylas@ualberta.ca

Elftouh Naoual 4nelftouh.hmr@ssss.gouv.qc.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2137-656
Kilpatrick Kelley 5kelley.kilpatrick@mcgill.ca

Houle Sherylin 6shoule@uwaterloo.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8680-5130
Leclerc Simon 5simonfleclerc@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3840-2641
Fernandez Nicolas 2nicolas.fernandez@umontreal.ca

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7876-0446
Lafrance Jean-Philippe 24jean-philippe.lafrance@umontreal.ca

1 College of Pharmacy - Clinical Pharmacy and Practice, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
2 Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
4 Hopital Maisonneuve-Rosemont Centre de Recherche, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
5 McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
6 University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100869 ).

J-PL reported honoraria from Amgen Canada, AstraZeneca Canada and Otsuka Canada for work not related to this study. SH reported honoraria from AstraZeneca Canada, and research support from GSK and Merck unrelated to this study. CS reports funding from Pfizer Canada ULC for research unrelated to this study. The remaining authors have declared no conflict of interests.

DrJean-PhilippeLafrance; jean-philippe.lafrance@umontreal.ca
2024
28 8 2024
31 1 e10086907 9 2023
06 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Background

Older patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) often do not receive optimal pharmacological treatment. Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not incorporate the concept of personalised care. Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms that consider both evidence and personalised care to improve patient outcomes can improve the care of older adults. The aim of this research is to design and validate a CDS algorithm for prescribing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) for older patients with diabetes.

Methods

The design of the CDS tool included the following phases: (1) gathering evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials to determine the number needed to treat (NNT) and time-to-benefit (TTB) values applicable to our target population for use in the algorithm. (2) Building a list of potential cases that addressed different prescribing scenarios (starting, adding or switching to RAASi). (3) Reviewing relevant guidelines and extracting all recommendations related to prescribing RAASi for DKD. (4) Matching NNT and TTB with specific clinical cases. (5) Validating the CDS algorithm using Delphi technique.

Results

We created a CDS algorithm that covered 15 possible scenarios and we generated 36 personalised and nine general recommendations based on the calculated and matched NNT and TTB values and considering the patient’s life expectancy and functional capacity. The algorithm was validated by experts in three rounds of Delphi study.

Conclusion

We designed an evidence-informed CDS algorithm that integrates considerations often overlooked in CPGs. The next steps include testing the CDS algorithm in a clinical trial.

Decision Support Systems, Clinical
Decision Trees
Disease Management
Evidence-Based Medicine
Patient-Centered Care
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

We designed an evidence-based CDS algorithm that integrates considerations often overlooked in CPGs, including life expectancy, functional status and personalised goals of therapy. The CDS algorithm covered 15 possible scenarios, and produced 36 personalised and 9 general recommendations.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

This study introduces a validated CDS algorithm for personalised prescribing to older adults with varying health profiles. The algorithm integrates personalised care criteria and evidence-based metrics derived from a meta-analysis. It provides general and tailored recommendations to guide prescribing decisions for older adults with diabetes, enhancing patient-specific treatment. This novel approach not only influences diabetes care but also establishes a framework for designing similar algorithms for different health conditions among older populations, benefiting research and practice.

Introduction

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the leading cause of kidney failure, responsible for approximately 40% of incident cases.1 2 To prevent and control DKD, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend prescribing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) to slow the progression of the disease.37 Generally, older adults are less likely to receive antihypertensive therapy as recommended by CPGs for different reasons, which include the preventative nature of some indications, cost, questionable efficacy and safety in older adults, and limited clinician–patient relationship.810 Moreover, although there is mounting evidence on the importance of prescribing RAASi in patients with diabetes, 57% of older patients in the USA with an indication for RAASi were not receiving it, while 62% of those on a RAASi received suboptimal doses.11 12

DKD poses an example of the decision-making challenges when prescribing medications for older patients due to patient complexity and the number of possible treatment options. These challenges have resulted in the presence of a gap between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and practice.1316 CPGs are produced and promoted by many organisations as a means to reduce this gap.17 Despite these efforts, clinicians are hesitant to apply those recommendations to older patients because they are aware that these guidelines are often not appropriate for this population.18 19 Furthermore, applying the recommendations of different CPGs to each comorbidity of older patients can result in a multitude of conflicting recommendations,20 potentially leaving the ultimate decision to expert opinion, rather than EBM. Consequently, older patients are at high risk of receiving suboptimal or inappropriate treatments.21 22

CPGs commonly face the challenge of primarily employing explicit criteria without accounting for patients’ unique characteristics or embracing personalised care. Personalised care for older adults may involve assessing functional status, caregiver support, genomics and patient preferences. Consequently, treatment plans hinge on risk-to-benefit ratios tailored to each patient.23 Clinical decision support (CDS) systems can facilitate the integration of both EBM and personalised care, optimising therapy for patients. Studies indicate that CDS tools enhance overall clinical practice, guideline adherence, patient therapy compliance, reduce polypharmacy and enhance patient safety.24 25

In this project, we aimed to design a novel CDS algorithm that merges EBM and personalised care concepts to support decision-making related to the use of RAASi in older adults with diabetes. The process of developing this CDS algorithm was studied, applied and validated, which can inform the development of further CDS algorithms for medication use in older patients.

Research objectives

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a CDS algorithm for clinicians and patients to help decide when to start, resume or stop RAASi for the prevention of DKD in older patients with diabetes. The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss one part of a large project to design and validate the CDS algorithm, and it focuses on the building of the algorithm.

Methods

The study consisted of six phases: (1) building the foundation of the algorithm; (2) the systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA); (3) the extraction of CPGs’ recommendations; (4) exploring healthcare providers (HCPs)’ input; (5) the design of the CDS algorithm; and (6) the validation of the CDS algorithm. In this paper we focus on results from phases 5 and 6.

Foundation of the algorithm

To design the algorithm, we followed the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) approach for treating older patients with multi-morbidity.26 This approach emphasises considering a patient’s unique factors based on their daily living activities and independence level, categorising them into a functional status group, and estimating their life expectancy.26

To achieve a balance between EBM and AGS’s personalised care principles, the other aspects of the CDS algorithm focused on medication-related factors drawn from relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and CPGs. These factors encompassed the number needed to treat (NNT) and time-to-benefit (TTB) for RAASi medications. NNT gauges a medication’s effect size, while TTB measures the time required for a statistically significant benefit to emerge in RCTs comparing therapy recipients to a control group.26 27

Systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted an SR/MA to identify and summarise all relevant RCTs on the role of RAASi in DKD.28 In summary, we searched all published RCTs that studied the renal protective effects of RAASi in patients with diabetes, extracting information from 46 studies. We used the results of our SR/MA to calculate NNT and TTB for each clinical case in the algorithm.28

Extraction of CPGs’ recommendations

The selection of the guidelines recommendations was carried out through a survey of six HCPs from different disciplines (medicine, pharmacy and nursing). The participants were recruited through the researchers’ professional network in Canada, and they worked in different areas of specialisations (nephrology, endocrinology and geriatrics). The survey asked the participants to rank conflicting recommendations that cover the same area of clinical care from different CPGs. The most highly ranked recommendations then were used in building the CDS algorithm in the next phases.

We conducted a search for CPGs on DKD, CKD and diabetes in PubMed, Canadian Medical Association Infobase, G-I-N International Guideline Library, Google Scholar and NICE databases from January 2010 to September 2021. Additionally, we manually sought relevant CPGs from professional organisations in nephrology, endocrinology, geriatrics and family practice. Inclusion criteria comprised CPGs published in English within the past 5 years or the latest versions of landmark CPGs, aligning with the Institute of Medicine’s definition of CPGs.29

A single researcher (NA) performed the search, while two researchers (J-PL and NA) screened CPGs against inclusion criteria, removing duplicates and older editions. Recommendations regarding RAASi prescription for DKD prevention or slowdown were extracted. An extraction form facilitated categorisation, incorporating recommendation strength and evidence level.

Quality assessment using the International Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist and platform involved two researchers (NA and SL). Only guidelines with an average rigour score exceeding 50% were considered.30

To select guideline recommendations, a survey involving six HCPs from diverse fields (medicine, pharmacy and nursing) was conducted. These participants, recruited from the authors’ professional network, specialised in nephrology, endocrinology and geriatrics. They ranked conflicting recommendations covering the same clinical care area from various CPGs, with the highest-ranked ones informing the CDS algorithm development in subsequent phases.

Exploring the key components of the CDS algorithm according to HCPs

We conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey of Canadian HCPs who were affiliated with a provincial regulatory body, nephrology organisation or advocacy body. A 59-item questionnaire composed of a mix of question types was designed to obtain HCPs’ perspectives about the use of CDS tools in their daily clinical practice.31

Design of the CDS algorithm

Case definitions and building

We built a list of all possible potential cases based on the presence or absence of the following conditions: albuminuria, CKD and hypertension. The cases also addressed the prescribing questions for these cases on starting, adding or switching to RAASi in patients with controlled or uncontrolled hypertension. Next, we screened the inclusion criteria of the 46 RCTs of the SR to identify which RCT can answer the clinical question of each case, and matched each RCT with one of the cases (table 1).

Table 1 The definitions of clinical cases and the corresponding trial(s)

Case #	Case	Trial(s)	
1C	In a patient with DM, normoalbuminuria, no CKD and controlled HTN, who is already receiving antihypertensives, Should we add RAASi to other antihypertensives for its renal protective features? or add nothing at all?	Bilous 2009	
1D	In a patient with DM, normoalbuminuria, no CKD and HTN, who is already receiving antihypertensives. Should we switch one of the antihypertensives with RAASi for its renal protective features?	Ruggenenti 2004	
2B	In a patient with DM, normoalbuminuria, but no CKD and no HTN. Should we start RAASi for renal protection?	Ravid 1998 and Mauer 2009	
3C	In a patient with DM, normoalbuminuria, CKD and controlled HTN, who is already receiving antihypertensives. Should we add RAASi to other antihypertensives for its renal protective features? Or add nothing at all?	Haller 2011	
4D	in a patient with DM, microalbuminuria and HTN, who has normal renal function and already is receiving antihypertensives. Should we switch one of the antihypertensives with RAASi for its renal protective features?	Fogari 1997, Fogari 2002, DallaVestra 2004 and Fogari 2005	
5B	In a patient with DM and microalbuminuria, but no CKD and no HTN. Should we start RAASi for its renal protection features?	Viberti 1994, Crepaldi 1998 and O'Hare 2000	
6B	In a patient with DM, microalbuminuria and CKD but no HTN. Should we start RAASi for its renal protection features?	Jerums 2004	
7C	In a patient with DM, macroalbuminuria, CKD and HTN, who is already receiving antihypertensives. Should we add RAASi to other antihypertensives for its renal protective features? Or add nothing at all?	Jerums 2004	
7E	In a patient with DM, macroalbuminuria, CKD and uncontrolled HTN, and is already receiving other antihypertensives, but requires another antihypertensive to control BP. Should we add RAASi to other antihypertensives for its renal protective features?	Lewis 2001	
BPblood pressureCKDchronic kidney diseaseDMdiabetes mellitusHTNhypertensionRAASirenin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors

Calculating NNT and TTB for each case

Data extraction was performed for 46 RCTs in the SR and MA. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate the effect size for each individual RCT then to calculate the pooled effect size for subgroups of RCTs that matched specific clinical cases. We reported the results as ORs, which were then used to calculate NNT for each clinical case in the algorithm using Moore’s method.32 33 The TTB was calculated using the statistical process control method as illustrated by van de Glind et al.34 While NNT provided the probability of the benefit from the treatment, TTB identified the time frame to witness this benefit. We used the NNT and TTB to estimate specific cut-points for the benefit of using RAASi for each case. Cut-points were used to generate the personalised recommendations based on patients’ estimated life expectancy and functional status, which were estimated by the Lee Index and the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living, respectively.35 36 For example, patients with short life expectancy (below a specific cut-point of years identified by TTB) and with poor functional status would probably not benefit from medications with long TTB and high NNT. Table 2 shows the NNT and TTB for each clinical case.

Table 2 The studies used in determining the pooled effect sizes, NNT and TTB for each clinical case

Case #	Author, year	Actual duration of trial (months)	Intervention class	Comparison	Outcome	Number of events for the outcome for intervention	Number of events for the outcome for comparison	OR	Pooled OR	Number needed to treat (NNT)	Time-to-benefit (TTB; months)	
1C	Bilous 2009	56.4	ARB	Placebo	All-cause mortality	51/2613	48/2618	1.07; 95% CI (0.72; 1.59)	–	NA	NA	
1D	Ruggenenti 2004	43.2	ACEI	CCB	All-cause mortality	3/301	2/303	1.52; 95% CI (0.25; 9.13)	–	NA	NA	
2B	Ravid 1998	72	ACEI	Placebo	All-cause mortality	3/97	2/97	1.52; 95% CI (0.25; 9.82)		NA	NA	
2B	Mauer 2009	60	ACEI	ARB	All-cause mortality	ACEI and ARB: 2/190	1/95	1; 95% CI (0.09; 11.17)	1.3; 95% CI (0.3; 5.57)	NA	NA	
3C	Haller 2011	38.4	ARB	Placebo	Doubling of serum creatinine	23/2232	23/2215	0.99; 95% CI (0.56; 1.77)	–	NA	NA	
3C	Haller 2011	38.4	ARB	Placebo	All-cause mortality	26/2232	15/2215	1.73; 95% CI (0.91; 3.27)	–	NA	NA	
4D	Fogari 1997	12	ACEI	CCB	Regression of albuminuria	4/25	3/25	1.4; 95% CI (0.28; 7)				
4D	Fogari 2002	48	ACEI	CCB	Regression of albuminuria	47/102	34/103	1.73; 95% CI (0.98; 3.05)				
4D	DallaVestra 2004	12	ACEI	CCB	Regression of albuminuria	28/89	21/91	1.53; 95% CI (0.79; 2.97)				
4D	Fogari 2005	24	ACEI	CCB	Regression of albuminuria	27/61	19/60	1.71; 95% CI (0.82; 3.6)	1.65; 95% CI (1.15; 2.37)*	9	18	
5B	Crepaldi 1998	36	ACEI	Placebo	Regression of albuminuria	5/32	1/34	6.11 (0.67; 55.51)				
5B	O'Hare 2000	24	ACEI	Placebo	Regression of albuminuria	9/44	2/46	5.66 (1.15; 27.89)*	5.81; 95% CI (1.59; 21.16)*	7	30	
6B	Jerums 2004	81	ACEI	Placebo	Regression of albuminuria	1/23	3/27	placebo: 0.36 (0.04; 3.76)	–	NA	NA	
7C	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	Placebo	Kidney failure	82/579	101/569	0.76; 95% CI (0.56; 1.05)				
7C	Brenner 2002	40.8	ARB	Placebo	Kidney failure	147/751	194/762	0.71; 95% CI (0.56; 0.91)*	0.73; 95% CI (0.60; 0.89)*	20	36	
7C	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	Placebo	Doubling of serum creatinine	98/579	135/569	0.65; 95% CI (0.49; 0.88)*				
7C	Brenner 2002	40.8	ARB	Placebo	Doubling of serum creatinine	162/751	198/762	0.78; 95% CI (0.62; 0.99)*	0.73; 95% CI (0.59; 0.89)*	18	36	
7C	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	Placebo	All-cause mortality	87/579	93/569	0.91; 95% CI (0.66; 1.24)				
7C	Brenner 2002	40.8	ARB	Placebo	All-cause mortality	158/751	155/762	1.04; 95% CI (0.81; 1.34)	0.99; 95% CI (0.8; 1.21)	NA	NA	
7E	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	CCB	Kidney failure	82/579	104/567	0.73; 95% CI (0.54; 1.01)	-	NA	NA	
7E	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	CCB	Doubling of SCr	98/579	144/567	0.6; 95% CI (0.45; 0.8)*	0.6; 95% CI (0.45; 0.8)*	11	31	
7E	Lewis 2001	31	ARB	CCB	All-cause mortality	87/579	83/567	1.03; 95% CI (0.74; 1.43)	-	NA	NA	
*for statistically significant values

ACEIangiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitorsARBangiotensin receptor blockersCCBcalcium channel blockersNAnot applicable ORodd ratio;

Validation of the CDS algorithm

We conducted a Delphi study to determine the content validity of the first draft of the proposed CDS tool.37 A series of questionnaires and controlled feedback is used as part of the communication between the researchers and the group of experts, where experts show their level of agreement on specific concepts, phrases or decisions.37 Based on the feedback the statements are revised and the survey is re-distributed along with individual positions.37

Panel experts participated anonymously in the process using LimeSurvey – an online survey programme. Each panellist was provided access to all of the relevant reference articles resulting from the MA, which form the evidence base for each recommendation in the CDS draft. Each participant was asked to indicate their level of agreement on each recommendation at each decision point of the proposed algorithm using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neutral; 4=disagree; and 5=strongly disagree. The median and IQR values were calculated for each item. Recommendations with a median value of <3 and a 75th percentile value <3 were included in the algorithm, while recommendations with a higher median value were modified and used for the subsequent rounds of the Delphi process. A second and third rounds of the Delphi process were conducted using the modified recommendations developed following the first round.

Results

Systematic review and meta-analysis

In the MA, evidence was drawn from 26 551 patients with diabetes from 46 studies published between 1991 and 2016. The majority of trials recruited patients from outpatient clinics, and included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The trials were mostly conducted on patients with microalbuminuria at baseline and patients with normal kidney function. The mean follow-up of the studies was 36 months (range 12–72). The mean sample size of all studies was 577 patients (range 50–5231). The average age of the patients was 51 years (range 28.7–82.5).28

The studies were categorised based on their inclusion criteria and study outcomes into categories as in online supplemental table 1. This MA provided the required data from 33 studies on the efficacy of RAASi which was used to calculate NNT and TTB values applicable to our target population for the use in the algorithm.

Extraction of CPGs’ recommendations

The electronic search retrieved 165 documents pertaining to different CPGs. After duplicate removal, the CPGs were screened for eligibility according to the prespecified inclusion criteria, and 23 were included as follows: 9 CPGs on CKD, 6 for diabetes, 5 for hypertension and 3 for primary care (table 3).

Table 3 A list of Included clinical practice guidelines

Topic	Country	Organisation	Guideline title	Publication year	
Kidney disease	Canada	Canadian Society of Nephrology	Canadian Society of Nephrology commentary on the KDIGO clinical practice guideline for CKD evaluation and management	2015	
The Canadian commentary on KDIGO 2012 AKI Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury	2013	
USA	Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes(KDIGO)	KDIGO 2020 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease	2020	
KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease	2012	
The KDIGO AKI 2012 KDIGO Clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury	2012	
Europe	European Renal Best Practice From: European Renal Association—European Dialysis and Transplant Association	A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Acute Kidney Injury: Part 1: definitions, conservative management and contrast-induced nephropathy	2012	
Guideline on Management of Older Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease	2016	
UK	The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)	Chronic kidney disease in adults: assessment and management	2015	
	The Renal Association (UK)	Acute Kidney Injury (AKI)	2019	
Diabetes	Canada	Diabetes Canada	Diabetes Canada 2018 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada	2018	
USA	American Diabetes Association	Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—202051	2020	
Endocrine Society	Treatment of Diabetes in Older Adults: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline	2019	
2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD	2019	
UK	The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)	Management of diabetes: A national clinical Guideline	2017	
Europe	European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)	2019 update to: Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)	2019	
Hypertension	Canada	Hypertension Canada	Hypertension Canada’s 2020 Guidelines	2020	
USA	American Heart Association	2017 Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines	2017	
	The Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)	2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee	2014	
Europe	European Society of Hypertension (ESH)	2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)	2018	
2019 Guidelines on Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD	2019	
Primary care	Canada	The Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (ICDC)	Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Clinical Pathway	2019	
UK	NICE	Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management	2016	
USA	American Academy of Family Physicians	Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertension in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older to Higher vs Lower Blood Pressure Targets: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians	2017	

Exploring the key components of the CDS algorithm according to HCPs

According to the published abstract of the survey study,38 63 participants from various disciplines (nephrology, family medicine, geriatrics and internal medicine) completed the questionnaire. Over 80% of respondents agreed that patient willingness to adhere to therapy, remaining life expectancy and functional capacity were pivotal in prescribing decisions for older adults. Most participants also expressed agreement with the importance of validating CDS tools and providing supporting evidence to facilitate their use in daily practice.

These study findings influenced the CDS algorithm’s design as follows: each CDS recommendation included supporting evidence and ORs with 95% CIs. Justifications for the recommendations were presented in both professional and lay terms to promote shared decision-making. Personalised recommendations took into account the patient’s life expectancy, level of independence, and therapy goals.

Design of the CDS algorithm

We built 16 clinical cases. The clinical cases of the CDS algorithm were categorised into two types: those with matching RCTs, and those without matching RCTs. The former are the ones that were represented by at least one RCT from the SR (table 1). We generated 36 personalised recommendations and 9 general recommendations for 9 clinical cases. NNT and TTB were calculated and incorporated in the personalised recommendations of the clinical cases and justifications were added in professional and lay languages. A list of the recommendations generated by the first draft of the CDS algorithm are presented in online supplemental table 2. The latter type denotes cases of patients that were not represented by any of the RCTs from the SR. These cases were added to the CDS algorithm and were provided prescribing recommendations from the CPGs (online supplemental table 3).

Validation of the CDS algorithm

Our study recruited a panel of 17 healthcare professionals The demographics of the expert panel are provided in online supplemental table 4.

Delphi round 1

Experts were given a link to a 54-question online questionnaire covering general and personalised recommendations for clinical cases. They offered input on recommendation content and wording. Based on their responses, 35 statements reached consensus and were included in the final algorithm draft, while 19 did not achieve consensus on content or wording and were moved to the second round. Online supplemental table 5 displays the median and IQR for each statement. Experts generally agreed on recommending RAASi for patients with microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria, and for those with controlled or uncontrolled hypertension. However, consensus was not reached for statements advising against RAASi for patients with normoalbuminuria and hypertension, or those with microalbuminuria and no hypertension. Recommendations were modified or entirely changed for statements lacking consensus, with justifications and relevant CPGs provided in Delphi round 2.

Delphi round 2

Twelve experts participated in round 2, which consisted of 19 questions concerning statements of the CDS algorithm. Based on the responses of the experts, consensus was not reached for nine statements for either content or wording or both, and therefore were moved to round 3. Online supplemental table 6 shows the median and IQR for each statement.

Modifications were made to the recommendations, so that we provided more neutral language. We provided information to the experts that we acknowledged that there are variations in clinical practice, but we stressed that our purpose was to obtain their responses based on their assessment of the evidence provided. Also provided were the CPG’s recommendations as well as the justifications for each recommendation.

Delphi round 3

Round 3 involved nine experts providing input on nine statements. Ultimately, a consensus was reached for all nine statements, concluding the validation process for the CDS algorithm (figure 1). Each statement’s median and IQR are shown in online supplemental table 7.

Figure 1 Flow diagram of Delphi rounds.

Design of the final draft of the CDS algorithm

The validated recommendations of the CDS algorithm were incorporated into the final draft of the CDS algorithm in a decision-tree with justifications of the recommendations (online supplemental table 8 and figure 2).

Figure 2 Clinical decision support algorithm for RAASi-related Prescribing Decisions for older adults with diabates.

Discussion

This article provided the rationale and details of the design and validation process of a novel CDS algorithm designed to help in making RAASi-related prescribing decisions for older adults with diabetes for the prevention and management of DKD. The final version of the algorithm included 9 general recommendations and 36 personalised recommendations considering the variation of life expectancies and functional capacities among older adults.

This pioneering CDS algorithm incorporates personalised care parameters using NNT and TTB values from an MA of RCTs. It leverages a wide range of RCTs as its knowledge base, accommodating various scenarios with differing albuminuria levels, hypertension and kidney disease. Developed by a team of experts in geriatrics, nephrology, pharmacoepidemiology and patient-reported outcomes, it also draws insights from clinicians across disciplines via surveys and Delphi studies. This interdisciplinary approach shaped the algorithm’s design systematically and structurally.

Acknowledging the lack of guidelines or standard methods for CDS algorithm development, referring to prior research offers insights. Lefebvre et al crafted nine deprescribing CDS algorithms for haemodialysis patients employing Lynn’s three-step approach.39 40 They conducted a systematic literature review to address research queries and engaged multidisciplinary experts for content development.39 Farrell et al developed four deprescribing CDS algorithms.4144 The algorithms were designed using a guidelines development approach through applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process.45 The same research group developed an instruction manual to guide the efforts of future researchers interested in the development of deprescribing CDS algorithms.46

A SR conducted by Souza-Pereira et al provided examples of CDS algorithms used to manage chronic diseases.47 The most addressed chronic diseases were diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and pain. According to their review, most of the algorithms focused on the follow-up management by providing treatment recommendations or guidelines on the management of the disease. The SR showed that most of the algorithms were developed using databases to feed the algorithms, and they were designed with the help of software engineers.47 Yan et al conducted a review on the CDS algorithms that were developed for inpatient pharmacy services.48 The review discussed studies that compared the CDS algorithm interventions to control and showed that around 80% of the evaluated CDS algorithms were associated with statistically significant favourable outcomes compared with control. These outcomes included correct doses based on renal function, the detection of drug–drug interactions and reduced length of stay.48

What distinguishes this CDS algorithm from the previous examples, is that beside providing a structured approach to prescribing, our CDS algorithm will also enable prescribers to incorporate personalised care concepts into their decisions. That is, the algorithm requires the prescriber to consider a variety of patient factors, including goals of therapy, quality of life, remaining life expectancy, and functional capacity. Considering these factors in the care of older adults is crucial, as older adults are heterogeneous in terms of these factors.26

As with other interventions, CDS algorithms aim to improve patients’ care and standardise practice. While algorithms and protocols are helpful, they are not a substitute for clinical expertise.49 It is normal for prescribers to disagree with some of the guidelines or algorithms. Despite this, clinical decision-making should follow a transparent, consistent approach.50 The rationale for deviating from guidelines and algorithms should be well-founded and properly documented. By providing documentation, CDS algorithms could be optimised in the future.50

This algorithm inherits limitations from the MA it was derived from, covering RCTs spanning over 20 years with methodological variations. Inclusion criteria led to diverse participant characteristics, managed through subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Generalisability may be limited as the expert panel were exclusively from Canada. Regular updates and adaptation of the CDS algorithm are essential to ensure relevance.

Conclusion

We designed and validated a novel CDS algorithm for RAASi-related decisions for older patients with diabetes. The phased design ensures a validated algorithm, incorporating older patient-centred care concepts and clinician input on prescribing decisions. Future research should assess its performance in clinical trials, aiming for realistics outcomes, reduced healthcare costs and maintained quality of life in older adults. Enhancing accessibility involves integrating it into a web-based decision support tool, facilitating use by HCPs.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100869 online supplemental table 1

Acknowledgements

We are sincerely grateful to each member of the expert advisory panel for their individual contributions to the validation of the CDS algorithm of this study. Members of the panel included: Dr Caroline Sirois, Dr Daniel Blum, Dr Darius Lucian Lazarus, Dr Emilie D'Aoust, Dr Etienne Durand, Dr Georges Ouellet, Dr Isabelle Paradis, Dr Julie Scott, Dr Khrystine Waked, Dr Louis Prud’homme, Dr Louis-Frédéric Martin, Dr Marie-France Beauchesne, Dr Michel Vallée, Ms Michelle Bergeron, Dr Rachel Rouleau, Dr Rita S Suri and Dr Sadaf Faisal.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Funding: NA received scholarships from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Fonds de Research Santé Quebec and Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont Research Center.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.
==== Refs
References

1 Canadian Institution of Health Information CORR annual statistics 2007 to 2016: @CIHI_ICIS; 2017 2007 Available https://www.cihi.ca/en/corr-annual-statistics-2007-to-2016 Accessed 21-Dec-2017
2 U.S. Renal Data System USRDS 2017 annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the united states Bethesda, MD National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 2017
3 Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee Diabetes Canada 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada Can J Diabetes 2018 42 S1 325 10.1016/S1499-2671(17)31026-2 29650079
4 American Diabetes Association 10. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018 Diabetes Care 2018 41 S105 18 10.2337/dc18-S010 29222381
5 Brenner BM Cooper ME de Zeeuw D et al Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy N Engl J Med 2001 345 861 9 10.1056/NEJMoa011161 11565518
6 Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators Lancet 2000 355 253 9 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)12323-7 10675071
7 Lewis EJ Hunsicker LG Clarke WR et al Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 2001 345 851 60 10.1056/NEJMoa011303 11565517
8 Peralta CA Hicks LS Chertow GM et al Control of hypertension in adults with chronic kidney disease in the United States Hypertension 2005 45 1119 24 10.1161/01.HYP.0000164577.81087.70 15851626
9 Ardery G Carter BL Milchak JL et al Explicit and Implicit Evaluation of Physician Adherence to Hypertension Guidelines J Clin Hypertens 2007 9 113 9 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2007.06112.x
10 Bai JW Boulet G Halpern EM et al Cardiovascular disease guideline adherence and self-reported statin use in longstanding type 1 diabetes: results from the Canadian study of longevity in diabetes cohort Cardiovasc Diabetol 2016 15 14 10.1186/s12933-015-0318-9 26809442
11 Rosen AB Indications for and utilization of ACE inhibitors in older individuals with diabetes. Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2002 J Gen Intern Med 2006 21 315 9 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00351.x 16686805
12 Hirt MN Muttardi A Helms TM et al General practitioners' adherence to chronic heart failure guidelines regarding medication: the GP-HF study Clin Res Cardiol 2016 105 441 50 10.1007/s00392-015-0939-8 26552905
13 Etchepare F Pambrun E Bégaud B et al Compliance of psychotropic drug prescription with clinical practice guidelines in older inpatients Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2016 30 82 92 10.1111/fcp.12167 26555674
14 Tjia J Briesacher BA Peterson D et al Use of medications of questionable benefit in advanced dementia JAMA Intern Med 2014 174 1763 71 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4103 25201279
15 Schwinn S McKay R Dinkel S et al Hypertension Management in the Odest Old: Findings From a Large Long‐Term Care Facility J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2017 29 123 9 10.1002/2327-6924.12403
16 Barnett AS Kim S Fonarow GC et al Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Concordance With the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society Guidelines: Findings From ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2017 10 e005051 10.1161/CIRCEP.117.005051 29141842
17 Bates DW Kuperman GJ Wang S et al Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003 10 523 30 10.1197/jamia.M1370 12925543
18 Anthierens S Tansens A Petrovic M et al Qualitative insights into general practitioners views on polypharmacy BMC Fam Pract 2010 11 65 10.1186/1471-2296-11-65 20840795
19 Cranney M Warren E Barton S et al Why do GPs not implement evidence-based guidelines? A descriptive study Fam Pract 2001 18 359 63 10.1093/fampra/18.4.359 11477041
20 Fried TR Tinetti ME Iannone L Primary Care Clinicians' Experiences With Treatment Decision Making for Older Persons With Multiple Conditions Arch Intern Med 2011 171 75 80 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.318 20837819
21 Karandikar YS Chaudhari SR Dalal NP et al Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly: a comparison of two validated screening tools J Clin Gerontol Geriatr 2013 4 109 14 10.1016/j.jcgg.2013.04.004
22 Swanoski MT Little MM St Hill CA et al Potentially Inappropriate Medication Prescribing in U.S. Older Adults with Selected Chronic Conditions Consult Pharm 2017 32 525 34 10.4140/TCP.n.2017.525 28855011
23 Reeve J Britten N Byng R et al Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK BMC Fam Pract 2018 19 1 13 10.1186/s12875-017-0705-2 29291706
24 Kawamoto K Houlihan CA Balas EA et al Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success BMJ 2005 330 765 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F 15767266
25 Pawloski PA Brooks GA Nielsen ME et al A Systematic Review of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Clinical Oncology Practice J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019 17 331 8 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7104 30959468
26 American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity Patient‐Centered Care for Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Stepwise Approach from the American Geriatrics Society J Am Geriatr Soc 2012 60 1957 68 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04187.x 22994844
27 Holmes HM Min LC Yee M et al Rationalizing Prescribing for Older Patients with Multimorbidity: Considering Time to Benefit Drugs Aging 2013 30 655 66 10.1007/s40266-013-0095-7 23749475
28 Alsalemi N Sadowski CA Elftouh N et al The effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on continuous and binary kidney outcomes in subgroups of patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials BMC Nephrol 2022 23 161 10.1186/s12882-022-02763-1 35484505
29 Consensus Report Clinical practice guidelines we can trust Institute of Medicine 2011
30 Brouwers MC Kerkvliet K Spithoff K et al The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines BMJ 2016 352 i1152 10.1136/bmj.i1152 26957104
31 Alsalemi N Sadowski C Elftouh N et al Exploring the Facilitators and Barriers Toward the Use of Clinical Decision-Support Tools by Healthcare Providers J Am Geriatr Soc 2022
32 Moore RA Gavaghan DJ Edwards JE et al Pooling data for Number Needed to Treat: no problems for apples BMC Med Res Methodol 2002 2 2 10.1186/1471-2288-2-2 11860605
33 Altman DG Deeks JJ Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat BMC Med Res Methodol 2002 2 1 5 10.1186/1471-2288-2-3 11860604
34 van de Glind EMM Willems HC Eslami S et al Estimating the Time to Benefit for Preventive Drugs with the Statistical Process Control Method:An Example with Alendronate Drugs Aging 2016 33 347 53 10.1007/s40266-016-0344-7 26884390
35 Lee SJ Lindquist K Segal MR et al Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults JAMA 2006 295 801 8 10.1001/jama.295.7.801 16478903
36 Mahoney FI Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index: a simple index of independence useful in scoring improvement in the rehabilitation of the chronically ill Md State Med J 1965
37 Day J Bobeva M A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies EJBRM 2005 3 103 16
38 Alsalemi N Sadowski C Elftouh N et al Exploring the Facilitators and Barriers Toward the Use of Clinical Decision-Support Tools by Healthcare Providers J AM GERIATR SOC 2022 10.13140/RG.2.2.35423.94880
39 Lefebvre MJ Ng PCK Desjarlais A et al Development and Validation of Nine Deprescribing Algorithms for Patients on Hemodialysis to Decrease Polypharmacy Can J Kidney Health Dis 2020 7 2054358120968674 10.1177/2054358120968674 33194213
40 Lynn MR Determination and quantification of content validity Nurs Res 1986 35 382 5 3640358
41 Farrell B Pottie K Thompson W et al Deprescribing proton pump inhibitors: evidence-based clinical practice guideline Can Fam Phys 2017 63 354 64
42 Pottie K Thompson W Davies S et al Deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists: evidence-based clinical practice guideline Can Fam Phys 2018 64 339 51
43 Bjerre LM Farrell B Hogel M et al Deprescribing antipsychotics for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia and insomnia: evidence-based clinical practice guideline Can Fam Phys 2018 64 17 27
44 Farrell B Black C Thompson W et al Deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents in older persons: evidence-based clinical practice guideline Can Fam Phys 2017 63 832 43
45 Guyatt G Oxman AD Akl EA et al GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 383 94 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583
46 Thompson W Pizzola L Hogel M et al Developing an evidence-based deprescribing guideline: instruction manual for guideline coordinators working document 2018 Available https://deprescribing.org/resources/deprescribing-guidelines-algorithms/
47 Souza-Pereira L Pombo N Ouhbi S et al Clinical decision support systems for chronic diseases: a systematic literature review Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020 195 105565 10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105565 32480191
48 Yan L Reese T Nelson SD A Narrative Review of Clinical Decision Support for Inpatient Clinical Pharmacists Appl Clin Inform 2021 12 199 207 10.1055/s-0041-1722916 33730757
49 Jablonski AM DuPen AR Ersek M The use of algorithms in assessing and managing persistent pain in older adults Am J Nurs 2011 111 34 43 10.1097/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000395239.60981.2f
50 Dennstädt F Treffers T Iseli T et al Creation of clinical algorithms for decision-making in oncology: an example with dose prescription in radiation oncology BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2021 21 10.1186/s12911-021-01568-w
51 Draznin B Aroda VR Bakris G Summary of Revisions: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022 Diabetes Care 2022 45 S4 7 10.2337/dc22-Srev 34964881
