Development of ‘Core Outcome Sets’ for meningioma in clinical studies: The COSMIC project

Aims To date, meningioma clinical trial activity has been limited, but a number of high-quality studies are underway, with more in development. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in meningioma clinical trials. The COSMIC Project will develop two ‘Core Outcome Sets’ (COS) through comprehensive, transparent, consensus methodology; to ensure outcomes relevant to key stakeholders are reported within and across future meningioma clinical studies. The first will be for use in clinical effectiveness trials (COSMIC: Intervention), the second will be for use in clinical studies of incidental meningioma (COSMIC: Observation). Method Three systematic literature reviews will be performed to generate a long-list of outcomes potentially relevant to meningioma patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and other stakeholder groups. The first systematic review will present the outcomes reported in published and ongoing meningioma clinical effectiveness trials. The second systematic review will present patient-reported outcomes (PRO) from the measurement tools utilised in meningioma PRO studies. The third systematic review will present the outcomes reported in published and ongoing clinical studies of untreated meningioma. Outcomes will be deduplicated, unique outcomes categorised according to the taxonomy presented by COMET, and the lists combined. The long-list of outcomes will be prioritised through two, 2-round, modified eDelphi surveys including meningioma patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and other stakeholder groups. Undecided outcomes from both eDelphi surveys will be ratified at two, one-day consensus meeting, with representation from all key stakeholder groups. Results We have formed a study advisory group with international representation from key organisations. The project already has confirmed support from the International Consortium on Meningioma (ICOM), the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome group (RANO-PRO), the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), British Neuro-Oncology Society (BNOS), Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS), The Brain Tumour Charity (TBTC), and Brainstrust. Conclusion Standardising minimum outcome reporting in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and meningioma clinical studies, through the development of these two COS will ensure outcomes reported are relevant to key stakeholder groups, including patients, whilst reducing research waste for a disease with increasing clinical trial activity. We seek to raise awareness of this project and invite participation from a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the final COS reflects the opinion of the neuro-oncology community. Registration will take place via the study website www.thecosmicproject.org between June-August 2021.

The pharmacological treatment of epilepsy: recent advances and future perspectives

The pharmacological armamentarium against epilepsy has expanded considerably over the last three decades, and currently includes over 30 different antiseizure medications. Despite this large armamentarium, about one third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve sustained seizure freedom with currently available medications. This sobering fact, however, is mitigated by evidence that clinical outcomes for many people with epilepsy have improved over the years. In particular, physicians now have unprecedented opportunities to tailor treatment choices to the characteristics of the individual, in order to maximize efficacy and tolerability. The present article discusses advances in the drug treatment of epilepsy in the last 5 years, focusing in particular on comparative effectiveness trials of second-generation drugs, the introduction of new pharmaceutical formulations for emergency use, and the results achieved with the newest medications. The article also includes a discussion of potential future developments, including those derived from advances in information technology, the development of novel precision treatments, the introduction of disease modifying agents, and the discovery of biomarkers to facilitate conduction of clinical trials as well as routine clinical management.

Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice

There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment.This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.

Developing a core outcome set for periodontal trials

Background There is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals. Objective Develop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases. Methods Mixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting. Participants Key stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers. Results The literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss. Conclusions Implementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions. Registration COMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true

Study protocol to develop a core outcome set for thyroid dysfunction to bridge the unmet needs of patient-centred care

IntroductionThyroid dysfunctions (TD) are common medical conditions affecting all global populations. Improved healthcare leading to increasing survival rates and delayed diagnosis rendered significant burden of the disease in the increasing number of patients with TD with comorbid illnesses. Therefore, reducing the burden of TD and improving the quality of care are crucial. Existing poor-quality data that guide evidence-based decisions only provide a fragmented picture of clinical care. The different outcomes across studies assessing the effectiveness of treatments impede our ability to synthesise results for determining the most efficient treatments. This project aims to produce a core outcome set (COS), which embeds the multiple complex dimensions of routine clinical care for the effectiveness studies and clinical care of adult patients with TD.Methods and analysisThis mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.Registration detailsCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371

Path Analysis of RCT Recruitment: Secondary Analysis of Results from a Systematic Review

We examine recruitment processes for 71 pragmatic and comparative effectiveness trials identified in a systematic review, using path analysis to examine rates of refusal to screen, test, and consent to trial participation. Our analysis suggests that refusal rates might be on net slightly higher if potential subjects are screened or asked to undergo physical eligibility tests, but this was not significant in our sample of trials ( p = .11 by Mann–Whitney test). We find that rates of refusing to provide informed consent are much lower for trials in which subjects have agreed to screening or testing (odds ratio = 0.40, Wilcoxon rank-sum z = 2.67, p = .008). We also observe that the overwhelming majority of trials examined secured consent after determining eligibility, even in trials involving screening or testing activities. The ethical implications and areas for future research are discussed.

A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection

BACKGROUND: Heterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant intervention after transurethral resection (TURBT) has been noted in systematic reviews (SRs). This hinders comparing results across trials, combining them in meta-analyses, and evidence-based decision-making for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the extent of reporting and definition heterogeneity. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from SRs comparing adjuvant treatments after TURBT or TURBT alone in patients with NMIBC (with or without carcinoma in situ) published between 2000–2020. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: We screened 807 abstracts; from 15 SRs, 57 RCTs were included. Verbatim outcome names were coded to standard outcome names and organised using the Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. Recurrence (98%), progression (74%), treatment response (in CIS studies) (40%), and adverse events (77%) were frequently reported across studies. However, overall (33%) and cancer-specific (33%) survival, treatment completion (17%) and treatment change (37%) were less often reported. Quality of Life (3%) and economic outcomes (2%) were rarely reported. Heterogeneity was evident throughout, particularly in the definitions of progression and recurrence, and how CIS patients were handled in the analysis of studies with predominantly papillary patients, highlighting further issues with the definition of recurrence and progression vs treatment response for CIS patients. Data reporting was also inconsistent, with some trials reporting event rates at various time-points and others reporting time-to-event with or without Hazard Ratios. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. QoL data was absent in most trials. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogenous outcome reporting is evident in NMIBC effectiveness trials. This has profound implications for meta-analyses, SRs and evidence-based treatment decisions. A core outcome set is required to reduce heterogeneity. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review found inconsistencies in outcome definitions and reporting, pointing out the urgent need for a core outcome set to help improve evidence-based treatment decisions. Keywords:

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

Background Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is, depending of the severity, a birth defect associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Prenatal screening by ultrasound may detect this condition and comprehensive assessment of severity is possible, allowing for in utero referral to an experienced centre for planned delivery. In an effort to improve outcomes, prenatal interventions to stimulate lung development were proposed. Along the same lines, new postnatal management strategies are being developed. In order to enable proper comparison of novel perinatal interventions as well as outcomes, a set of uniform and relevant outcome measures is required. Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed, clearly defined sets of outcomes to be measured in a standardised manner and reported consistently. Herein we aim to describe the methodology we will use to define a COS for perinatal and neonatal outcomes of foetuses and newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and to draft a dissemination and implementation plan. Methods We will use the methodology described in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative Handbook. An international steering group will be created to guide the development of the COS. We are systematically reviewing the literature to identify all potential relevant pre- and neonatal outcomes previously used in studies on perinatal interventions for CDH. We will build a consensus on these core outcomes in a stakeholder group using the Delphi method. After completion, a stakeholder meeting will decide on a final COS, using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Thereafter, we will review potential definitions and measurements of these outcomes, and again a consensus meeting will be organised, to finalise the COS before dissemination. Discussion We have started a procedure to develop a COS for studies on perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, with the purpose of improving the quality of research, guide clinical practice and improve patient care and eventual use in future clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Trial registration We prospectively registered this study in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42019124399) and The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative (registration number:1296).