Substance Use Disorder Guideline Committee, August 2019
The NYSDOH AI protects and promotes the health of NYS’s diverse population through disease surveillance and the provision of quality services for prevention, healthcare, and psychosocial support for those affected by HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, viral hepatitis, and related health concerns. In addition, the NYSDOH AI promotes the health of LGBT populations, substance users, and the sexual health of all New Yorkers.
Makeup: The members of the SUD Guideline Committee (see Box XX: SUD Guideline Committee Leaders, Members, and External Reviewers) were appointed by the NYSDOH AI to ensure representation of clinical practice in all major regions of the state, relevant medical disciplines and sub-specialties, key NYS agencies, community stakeholders, and patient advocates. Individuals confirmed as Committee members are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest; disclosures are reviewed and approved by the NYSDOH AI Office of the Medical Director (see Funding and Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest).
Role: Committee members actively participate in guideline development, including evidence review, drafting of recommendations and text, manuscript review, consensus approval of all recommendations, and rating of recommendations.
Leadership: The SUD Planning Group of committee leaders refined the recommendations, facilitated consensus approval of all recommendations, reviewed manuscripts, and addressed feedback from external peer and consumer reviewers.
SUD Guideline Committee Planning Group:
- Chinazo O. Cunningham, MD, MS, Chair
- Kelly S. Ramsey, MD, MPH, MA, FACP, Vice-Chair
- Sharon L. Stancliff, MD, Harm Reduction in Health Care, NYSDOH AI
- Annette Gaudino, Treatment Action Group (TAG) Representative
- Christopher J. Hoffmann, MD, MPH, JHU Principal Investigator
Box 1: SUD Guideline Committee: Leadership, Contributing Members, Liaisons, and Guideline Reviewers
Agency, Consumer, and Program Liaisons
AIDS Institute Staff
External Peer Reviewers
Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder
Johns Hopkins University Editorial Role
The JHU editorial team coordinated, guided, and documented all Committee activities and edited the guideline material for clarity, flow, and style.
JHU editorial team:
- Mary Beth Hansen, MA, JHU Project Director
- Jen Ham, MPH, JHU Medical Editor; Lead Editor
- Hanna Gribble, MA, JHU Medical Editor
- Rachel Lastra, JHU Medical Editor
- Jesse Ciekot, Program Coordinator
Funding and Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding: The SUD Guideline was developed using NYS funds awarded as a grant to the JHU School of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, from the NYSDOH AI.
Conflicts of interest: All active committee members, invited consultants and coauthors, peer reviewers, and program staff are required to disclose financial relationships with commercial entities, including gifts that may be actual conflicts of interest or may be perceived as conflicts. These individuals must disclose financial relationships annually, for themselves, their partners/spouses, and their organization/institution. On their annual disclosures, committee members are asked to report for the previous 12 months and upcoming 12 months.
No conflicts were reported by the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, the consultant, the Committee members, and all NYSDOH AI and JHU program staff.
Management of potential conflicts of interest: All reported financial relationships with commercial entities are reviewed by the NYSDOH AI guidelines program to assess the potential for undue influence on guideline recommendations made by the Committee. No financial relationships were reported.
Any potential for undue influence is also mitigated by the consensus process. All guideline recommendations received consensus approval of the full Committee. The Committee Chairs and the NYSDOH AI Medical Director, none of whom reported conflicts of interest, performed the final review and approved the guideline.
All external reviewers, including peer reviewers and representatives from other NYSDOH AI clinical guidelines committees, were also required to submit conflict of interest/financial disclosure information, which were similarly screened. No conflicts were reported.
Evidence Collection and Review
The NYSDOH AI guideline development process is based on a systematic search and analysis of the published evidence. Box 2, below, illustrates the evidence review and selection process.
Box 2: Evidence Collection and Review Processes
Recommendation Development and Rating Process
The clinical recommendations presented in this guideline were developed by consensus based on a synthesis of the current evidence collected through the systematic search described above. If no data were available, the recommendations are based on expert opinion, and this status is indicated in the rating and in the text.
The Planning Group met via monthly teleconferences over 24 months to finalize the guideline and reach consensus on recommendations and rationale. Once consensus among the Planning Group members was reached, the guideline was reviewed by the full SUD Committee, including consumer liaisons, and consensus was reached on all recommendations. These deliberations were conducted by teleconference; committee members were invited to submit comments in writing as well. Full Committee review discussions were recorded, and recordings were reviewed carefully to ensure that all decisions and changes were captured and integrated into the manuscript.
Members of the Planning Group then individually reviewed the evidence for each recommendation and assigned a two-part rating (see below). The individual ratings were compiled into a report distributed to all raters, and conference call discussions were held to deliberate ratings for which consensus was needed. Once all raters agreed on the interpretation of evidence and ratings for all recommendations, the guideline was sent to the NYSDOH AI for review and approval.
|AIDS Institute HIV Clinical Guidelines Program Recommendations Rating Scheme|
|Strength of Recommendation||Quality of Supporting Evidence|
|A = Strong||1 = At least 1 randomized trial with clinical outcomes and/or validated laboratory endpoints|
|B = Moderate||2 = One or more well-designed, nonrandomized trial or observational cohort study with long-term clinical outcomes|
|C = Optional||3 = Expert opinion|
External peer reviewers recognized for their experience and expertise in the treatment of SUD were identified by program leaders (see Box 1: SUD Committee: Leadership, Contributing Members, Liaisons, and Guideline Reviewers). These individuals submitted a financial disclosure statement for the purpose of identifying potential conflicts of interest before participating as peer reviewers. No conflicts were reported by peer reviewers.
Peer reviewers were asked to review the SUD guidelines for accuracy, balance, clarity, and practicality of the recommendations for primary care providers. The Planning Group addressed peer review feedback; any conflicting opinions were resolved by the Committee chairs.
Members of the Substance Use Guideline Committee will monitor developments in the field to maintain guideline currency. Once the guidelines are published on the program website, www.hivguidelines.org, any updates will be made to the document as needed.
Notification of newly published studies will be automated, and the Planning Group will review new data at least every 4 months. Newly published data that provide support for existing recommendations will be cited in the text, and the studies will be added to the reference list(s).
If newly published data prompt a revision to recommendations or rationale, the Planning Group will propose appropriate edits and determine whether the changes warrant full Committee review and approval. If full Committee review is required, a conference call will be convened for that purpose.
If a new medication or formulation is approved, the Planning Group will be convened via conference call to examine the data, consider inclusion in the guideline, and determine the need for full Committee review and approval.
The full guideline will be reviewed and updated on the 4th anniversary of publication to prepare for publication of an updated guideline on or before the 5th anniversary of publication.