Securely sharing DSMB reports to speed decision making from multiple, concurrent, independent studies of similar treatments in COVID-19.

Introduction: As clinical trials were rapidly initiated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) faced unique challenges overseeing trials of therapies never tested in a disease not yet characterized. Traditionally, individual DSMBs do not interact or have the benefit of seeing data from other accruing trials for an aggregated analysis to meaningfully interpret safety signals of similar therapeutics. In response, we developed a compliant DSMB Coordination (DSMBc) framework to allow the DSMB from one study investigating the use of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19 to review data from similar ongoing studies for the purpose of safety monitoring. Methods: The DSMBc process included engagement of DSMB chairs and board members, execution of contractual agreements, secure data acquisition, generation of harmonized reports utilizing statistical graphics, and secure report sharing with DSMB members. Detailed process maps, a secure portal for managing DSMB reports, and templates for data sharing and confidentiality agreements were developed. Results: Four trials participated. Data from one trial were successfully harmonized with that of an ongoing trial. Harmonized reports allowing for visualization and drill down into the data were presented to the ongoing trial's DSMB. While DSMB deliberations are confidential, the Chair confirmed successful review of the harmonized report. Conclusion: It is feasible to coordinate DSMB reviews of multiple independent studies of a similar therapeutic in similar patient cohorts. The materials presented mitigate challenges to DSMBc and will help expand these initiatives so DSMBs may make more informed decisions with all available information.

Reporting Weight Loss 2021: Position Statement of the Dutch Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (DSMBS).

Prevailing recommendations on reporting weight loss after bariatric and metabolic surgery are not evidence-based. They promote the outcome metric percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), sometimes indicated as percentage excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL). Many studies proved that this popular outcome measure, in contrast to other weight loss metrics, is inaccurate and error-sensitive when comparing weight loss within and between studies. It is inappropriate for assessing poor weight loss response and weight regain as well. The percentage (total) weight loss metric is the best alternative. The Dutch Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (DSMBS) recommends to stop using the %EWL (or %EBMIL) metric as primary outcome measure in all cases and calls on the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) to propagate this evidence-based recommendation.

Of Straws, Camels, Research Regulation, and IRBs.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become beleaguered by a growth in responsibilities related to research oversight in the past several decades. A number of regulatory bodies have appeared in response to these novel and complex responsibilities, seeking to respond to among other issues, conflicts of interest, new technologies, and the potential misuse of research findings. Here, we examine several examples of these novel regulatory bodies as well as a number of concerns related to them that have been largely unacknowledged. Evidence suggests that there can be disharmony and conflicts between these regulatory bodies and IRBs, a lack of clarity with regard to their roles and responsibilities, as well as shortcomings within these entities that, at times, look a lot like the worries that have long been raised in relation to IRBs. We offer a brief discussion of how some of these concerns might be ameliorated, either through a significant restructuring of the system of research oversight, or perhaps through smaller changes to these regulatory bodies.

Perioperative Outcomes of Primary Bariatric Surgery in North-Western Europe: a Pooled Multinational Registry Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The global prevalence of obesity has increased in recent decades, and bariatric surgery has become a part of the treatment algorithm of obesity. National high-quality registries enable large-scale evaluations of the use and outcome of bariatric surgery and may allow for improved knowledge. The main objective was to evaluate the rate and type of complications after primary bariatric surgery in three North-Western European countries using nationwide registries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from three registries for bariatric surgery were used (January 2015-December 2016). All registries have nationwide coverage with data on patient characteristics, obesity-related diseases, surgical technique, complications, grading of complications, reinterventions, readmissions, and mortality. Eligibility criteria for bariatric surgery were similar and included body mass index of ≥ 40.0 or ≥ 35.0 kg/m2, with one or more obesity-associated diseases. RESULTS: A total of 35,858 procedures (32,177 primary) were registered. The most common procedure was gastric bypass in the Netherlands (78.9%) and Sweden (67.0%), and sleeve gastrectomy in Norway (58.2%). A total of 904 (2.8%) patients developed major complications after primary surgery and 12 patients (0.04%) died within 30 days. Total number of complications between the registries were comparable (p = 0.939). However, significant differences were seen for Clavien-Dindo Classification grades IIIb and IV (p < 0.001). Pooled readmission rates were 4.3% (n = 1386). DISCUSSION: Bariatric surgery is safely performed in the three evaluated countries. Standardization of registries and consensus of variables are essential for international comparison and may contribute to improved quality of treatment across nations.