Core Clinical Data Elements for Cancer Genomic Repositories: A Multi-stakeholder Consensus.

The Center for Medical Technology Policy and the Molecular Evidence Development Consortium gathered a diverse group of more than 50 stakeholders to develop consensus on a core set of data elements and values essential to understanding the clinical utility of molecularly targeted therapies in oncology.

coreSCD: multi-stakeholder consensus on core outcomes for sickle cell disease clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: With the dramatic increase in the pipeline for new sickle cell disease (SCD) therapies in recent years, the time is ripe to ensure a robust body of evidence is available for decision making by regulators, payers, clinicians, and patients. Harmonization of the outcomes selected across interventional trials enables optimal post-trial appraisal and decision making through valid pooled analyses and indirect comparisons. We employed a structured, multi-stakeholder consensus process to develop core outcome sets (COS) for use in clinical trials of SCD interventions. METHODS: CoreSCD utilized a modified Delphi method adapted from the standards recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. An initial list of candidate outcomes was developed through a targeted literature review and input from an 11-member advisory committee. A 44-member multi-stakeholder Delphi Panel was established and included patients and family members, advocates, clinicians, researchers, payers, health technology assessors, representatives from government agencies, and industry representatives. Patients/advocates comprised 25% of the Delphi Panel and orientation and training was provided prior to the consensus process to ensure all were prepared to participate meaningfully. Panelists completed three rounds of an online survey to rate the importance of candidate outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Summary data was provided between each voting round and an in-person consensus meeting was held between the second and third round of voting. Consensus rules were applied following each round of voting to eliminate outcomes that did not meet predetermined criteria for retention. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for two core outcome sets. The final COS for trials of disease-modifying therapies includes ten outcomes and the COS for trials of acute interventions includes six outcomes. Both core sets include clinical outcomes as well as outcomes related to functioning/quality of life, resource utilization, and survival/mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the COS in clinical development programs for SCD will help to ensure that relevant, consistent outcomes are available for decision making across the product lifecycle.

Addressing heterogenous outcomes in uterine fibroid research: a call to action.

Uterine fibroid tumors are the most common benign pelvic tumors in women, with complications that include heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, reproductive complications, and bulk-related symptoms. Although the majority of uterine fibroid tumors are asymptomatic, those women who experience symptoms can experience substantial burdens on quality of life and daily functioning. Comparative effectiveness reviews of available medical, surgical, and radiologic treatments have found that a lack of high-quality data to inform treatment decisions is, in part, due to the use of heterogeneous outcomes and instruments in clinical studies. With multiple new interventions emerging, this call-to-action encourages the development and use of a core outcome set that will capture the most relevant, patient-important outcomes in late-phase and after-marketing therapeutic trials for uterine fibroid tumors. The core outcome set should be developed by a diverse, multistakeholder group comprised of key healthcare decision-makers. Development and uptake of a core outcome set ensures that a consistent, collaboratively vetted set of outcomes will be accessible across different studies and promotes transparency for innovators who seek to anticipate the evidence needs of patients, providers, payers, regulators, and other stakeholders.

coreNASH: Multi-stakeholder Consensus on Core Outcomes for Decision Making About Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Treatment.

The increasing prevalence and burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has spurred the development of new treatments and a need to consider outcomes used for NASH treatment decision making. Development of a NASH core outcome set (COS) can help prioritize outcomes of highest importance by incorporating the perspectives from a variety of decision makers. coreNASH was an initiative to develop a COS for NASH using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multi-stakeholder voting panel. A candidate outcome list was created based on a literature review and key informant interviews. The candidate outcome list was then condensed and prioritized through three rounds of online voting and through discussion at an in-person meeting. Outcomes were retained or eliminated based on predetermined consensus criteria, which included special weighting of patients' opinions in the first two voting rounds. The coreNASH Delphi panel included 53 participants (7 patients, 10 clinicians and researchers, 7 health technology assessors, 22 industry representatives, 2 regulators, and 5 payers) who considered outcomes for two NASH-related COS: one for NASH without cirrhosis (F2-F3) and one for NASH with cirrhosis (F4). The initial candidate outcome list for both disease stages included 86 outcomes. The panel agreed on including two core outcomes for NASH without cirrhosis and nine core outcomes for NASH with cirrhosis in the COS. Conclusion: A consensus-based COS has been developed that can be used across the life cycle of NASH treatments. Outcomes included can contribute to decision making for regulatory, market access, and on-market decision making. Including the coreNASH COS in clinical development programs will facilitate improved comparisons and help decision makers assess the value of new products.

Engaging patients, clinicians, and the community in a Clinical Data Research Network: Lessons learned from the CAPriCORN CDRN.

Engaging patients, clinicians, and community members in the development of a research network creates opportunities and challenges beyond engagement in discrete learning activities. This paper describes our experiences establishing and maintaining a stakeholder engagement infrastructure for the Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (CAPriCORN) and highlights important lessons learned over the first 4 years. During this time, the CAPriCORN Patient and Community Advisory Committee (PCAC) appointed patient, clinician, and community representatives to governance and advisory groups throughout the network, developed a process and criteria for patient- and clinician-centered review of research proposals, and evolved from a large, diverse group to a smaller yet still diverse, more actively engaged group with connections to the broader community. Key challenges faced by the PCAC have included determining the optimal size and composition of the group, understanding the complex structure of the network as a whole, coordinating with other network entities and functions, and integrating the patient and community voice into the research review process. Efforts to engage stakeholders in clinical data research networks should anticipate and develop solutions to address these challenges.

Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions.

AIM: Identify solutions to the most important policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing. MATERIALS & METHODS: Four-round modified policy Delphi with a multistakeholder panel of 48 experts. The panel deliberated policy solutions to (previously reported) challenges deemed most important to address. RESULTS: The group advocated using consensus panels to promote consistency in payer policies and to standardize test reporting, and favored making genomic data-sharing a condition of regulatory clearance, certification, or accreditation processes. They were split on the role of US FDA. CONCLUSION: Panelists found common ground on solutions for health plan coverage policy consistency, data-sharing, and standardizing reporting, but were sharply divided on the role of the FDA in mitigating risks to patients.

Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel.

This research aims to inform policymakers by engaging expert stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and deliberate the most important and tractable policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next generation sequencing (NGS). A 4-round Delphi policy study was done with a multi-stakeholder panel of 48 experts. The first 2 rounds of online questionnaires (reported here) assessed the importance and tractability of 28 potential barriers to clinical adoption of NGS across 3 major policy domains: intellectual property, coverage and reimbursement, and FDA regulation. We found that: 1) proprietary variant databases are seen as a key challenge, and a potentially intractable one; 2) payer policies were seen as a frequent barrier, especially a perceived inconsistency in standards for coverage; 3) relative to other challenges considered, FDA regulation was not strongly perceived as a barrier to clinical use of NGS. Overall the results indicate a perceived need for policies to promote data-sharing, and a desire for consistent payer coverage policies that maintain reasonably high standards of evidence for clinical utility, limit testing to that needed for clinical care decisions, and yet also flexibly allow for clinician discretion to use genomic testing in uncertain circumstances of high medical need.