Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Background Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies. Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences. Methods The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS–Standards for Development recommendations (COS–STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared. Results Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE—both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS. Conclusions The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS. Trial registration Not registered.

Development of Core Outcome Sets for Clinical Trials in Temporomandibular Disorders

Background Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) is a generic term applied to describe musculoskeletal disorders that affect the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), the masticatory muscles and the related structures. TMD comprises two groups of disorders, namely intra-articular TMD and masticatory muscle disorders. There is still difficulty in establishing the effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities for TMD with robust evidence, despite the large volume of publications in the area. The lack of outcomes standardization may represent a limiting factor in the search for scientific evidence. Objective This study aims to develop a core outcome sets (COS) for clinical trials in intra-articular TMD and masticatory muscle disorders. Methods The protocol for determining the COS-TMD will consist of three phases: 1. Synthesis of TMD Management Intervention Outcomes. The identification of outcomes will be carried out through a systematic review, which will include randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions used in TMD management. 2. Through a two-round international Delphi survey, the list of outcomes will be scored by three panels of stakeholders. 3. A representative sample of key stakeholders will be invited to participate in a face-to-face meeting where they can discuss the results of the Delphi survey and determine the final core set. Conclusions The implementation of this protocol will determine the COS-TMD, which will be made available for use in all TMD clinical studies. The use of COS when planning and reporting TMD clinical trials will reduce the risk of publication bias and enable proper comparison of results found by different studies.

Outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the pharmacological management of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) in women; a systematic review for the development of core outcome sets (COS)

Introduction and hypothesis Evidence on OAB management remains suboptimal and methodological limitations in randomized control trials (RCTs) affect their comparability. High quality meta-analyses are lacking. This study aimed to compare selection and reporting of outcomes and outcome measures across RCTs as well as evaluate methodological quality and outcome reporting quality as a first stage in the process of developing core outcome sets (COS). Methods RCTs were searched using Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, ICTRP and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to January 2020, in English language, on adult women. Pharmacological management, interventions, sample size, journal type and commercial funding were documented. Methodological and outcome reporting quality were evaluated using JADAD and MOMENT scores. Results Thirty-eight trials (18,316 women) were included. Sixty-nine outcomes were reported, using 62 outcome measures. The most commonly reported outcome domains were efficacy (86.8%), safety (73.7%) and QoL (60.5%). The most commonly reported outcomes in each domain were urgency urinary incontinence episodes (UUI) (52.6%), antimuscarinic side effects (76.3%) and change in validated questionnaire scores (36.8%). A statistically significant correlation was found between JADAD and MOMENT (Spearman’s rho = 0.548, p < 0.05) scores. This indicates that higher methodological quality is associated with higher outcome reporting quality. Conclusions Development of COS and core outcome measure sets will address variations and lead to higher quality evidence. We recommend the most commonly reported outcomes in each domain, as interim COS. For efficacy we recommend: UUI episodes, urgency and nocturia episodes; for safety: antimuscarinic adverse events, other adverse events and discontinuation rates; for QoL: OAB-q, PPBC and IIQ scores.

Neonatal sepsis: a systematic review of core outcomes from randomised clinical trials

Background The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered. Results Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain. Conclusions This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation. Impact This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.

A core outcome set for damage control laparotomy via modified Delphi method

ObjectivesDamage control laparotomy (DCL) remains an important tool in the trauma surgeon’s armamentarium. Inconsistency in reporting standards have hindered careful scrutiny of DCL outcomes. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for DCL clinical studies to facilitate future pooling of data via meta-analysis and Bayesian statistics while minimizing reporting bias.MethodsA modified Delphi study was performed using DCL content experts identified through Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) ‘landmark’ DCL papers and EAST ad hoc COS task force consensus.ResultsOf 28 content experts identified, 20 (71%) participated in round 1, 20/20 (100%) in round 2, and 19/20 (95%) in round 3. Round 1 identified 36 potential COS. Round 2 achieved consensus on 10 core outcomes: mortality, 30-day mortality, fascial closure, days to fascial closure, abdominal complications, major complications requiring reoperation or unplanned re-exploration following closure, gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, secondary intra-abdominal sepsis (including anastomotic leak), enterocutaneous fistula, and 12-month functional outcome. Despite feedback provided between rounds, round 3 achieved no further consensus.ConclusionsThrough an electronic survey-based consensus method, content experts agreed on a core outcome set for damage control laparotomy, which is recommended for future trials in DCL clinical research. Further work is necessary to delineate specific tools and methods for measuring specific outcomes.Level of evidenceV, criteria

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Dutch Version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the Neck in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Degenerative Disease of the Cervical Spine

Objective: To perform the psychometric validation of the Dutch version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.Methods: A total of 178 patients, who had an indication for surgery due to degenerative cervical spinal disease, were enrolled in the study. They filled in a baseline booklet containing the Dutch version of the COMI-neck, Likert-scales for neck and arm/shoulder pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and the 12-item Short Form health survey (SF-12). Aside from analyzing construct validity using the Spearman correlation test, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness at 3 months were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, respectively.Results: The COMI-neck showed good acceptability with missing data ranging from 0% to 4.5% and some floor/ceiling effects for 3 of the domains at baseline. The COMI-summary score showed good to very good correlation with the EQ5D (ρ = -0.43), the physical component summary of the SF-12 (ρ = -0.47) and the NDI (ρ = 0.73). Individual domains showed correlations of -0.28 to 0.85 with the reference questionnaires. Test-retest reliability analysis showed an ICC of 0.91 with a minimal detectable change of 1.7. Responsiveness analysis of the COMI-neck showed an area under 0.79 under the ROC-curve. The standardized response mean for a good outcome was 1.24 and for a poor outcome 0.37.Conclusion: The current study shows that the Dutch version of the COMI-neck is a valid, reliable and responsive Patient-Reported Outcome Measure, among patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical spinal disorders.

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery

Background International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study). Methods 952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS (‘consensus in’, ‘consensus out’, ‘no consensus’). Outcomes categorised as ‘consensus in’ or ‘consensus out’ by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively. Results In total, 13 outcomes were categorised ‘consensus in’ (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 ‘consensus out’ and 31 ‘no consensus’. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups. Conclusion Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made.

A Core Outcome Set for Trials in Glomerular Disease

Background and objectivesOutcomes reported in trials in adults with glomerular disease are often selected with minimal patient input, are heterogeneous, and may not be relevant for clinical decision making. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology–Glomerular Disease (SONG-GD) initiative aimed to establish a core outcome set to help ensure that outcomes of critical importance to patients, care partners, and clinicians are consistently reported.Design, setting, participants, and measurementsWe convened two 1.5-hour workshops in Melbourne, Australia, and Washington, DC, United States. Attendees were identified purposively with 50 patients/care partners and 88 health professionals from 19 countries; 51% were female. Patients and care partners were from the United States, Australia, and Canada, and had experience of a glomerular disease with systemic features (n=9), kidney-limited nephrotic disease (n=9), or other kidney-limited glomerular disease (n=8). Attendees reviewed the results of the SONG-GD Delphi survey and aims of the workshop and then discussed potential core outcomes and their implementation in trials among moderated breakout groups of eight to 12 people from diverse backgrounds. Transcripts of discussions were analyzed thematically.ResultsThree themes were identified that supported the proposed core outcomes: limiting disease progression, stability and control, and ensuring universal relevance (i.e., applicable across diverse populations and settings). The fourth theme, preparedness for implementation, included engaging with funders and regulators, establishing reliable and validated measures, and leveraging existing endorsements for patient-reported outcomes.ConclusionsWorkshop themes demonstrated support for kidney function, disease activity, death, life participation, and cardiovascular disease, and these were established as the core outcomes for trials in adults with glomerular disease. Future work is needed to establish the core measures for each domain, with funders and regulators central to the uptake of the core outcome set in trials.