Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children".

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Efficacy and safety of ciclosporin versus methotrexate in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children and young people (TREAT): a multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systemic drugs are used to treat children and young people (CYP) with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) worldwide, but no robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence exists regarding their efficacy and safety in this population. While novel therapies have expanded therapeutic options, their high cost means traditional agents remain important, especially in lower-resource settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of ciclosporin (CyA) with methotrexate (MTX) in CYP with severe AD in the TREatment of severe Atopic Eczema Trial (TREAT) trial. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group assessor-blinded RCT in 13 UK and Irish centres. Eligible participants aged 2-16 years and unresponsive to potent topical treatment were randomized to either oral CyA (4 mg kg-1 daily) or MTX (0.4 mg kg-1 weekly) for 36 weeks and followed-up for 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare (relapse) after treatment cessation. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 60 weeks; number of participant-reported flares following treatment cessation; proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50) and ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI 75); and stratification of outcomes by filaggrin status. RESULTS: In total, 103 participants were randomized (May 2016-February 2019): 52 to CyA and 51 to MTX. CyA showed greater improvement in disease severity by 12 weeks [mean difference in o-SCORAD -5.69, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -10.81 to -0.57 (P = 0.01)]. More participants achieved ≥ 50% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 50) at 12 weeks in the CyA arm vs. the MTX arm [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% CI 1.23-5.49; P = 0.01]. By 60 weeks MTX was superior (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.85; P = 0.02), a trend also seen for ≥ 75% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 75), EASI 50 and EASI 75. Participant-reported flares post-treatment were higher in the CyA arm (OR 3.22, 95% CI 0.42-6.01; P = 0.02). QoL improved with both treatments and was sustained after treatment cessation. Filaggrin status did not affect outcomes. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between both treatments. Five (10%) participants on CyA and seven (14%) on MTX experienced a serious AE. CONCLUSIONS: Both CyA and MTX proved effective in CYP with severe AD over 36 weeks. Participants who received CyA showed a more rapid response to treatment, while MTX induced more sustained disease control after discontinuation.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

ERS statement: a core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of COPD exacerbations.

Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritised for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey completed by 1063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in five continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to 1) finalise the core outcome set and 2) prioritise a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritised outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for at all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, the need for a higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimise some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritised set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments to be burdensome for patients and health professionals to use.

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).

BACKGROUND: Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. METHODS: Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. RESULTS: Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). CONCLUSION: ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

An international Delphi consensus process to determine a common data element and core outcome set for frailty: FOCUS (The Frailty Outcomes Consensus Project).

BACKGROUND: Despite increased recognition of frailty and its importance, high quality evidence to guide decision-making is lacking. There has been variation in reported data elements and outcomes which makes it challenging to interpret results across studies as well as to generalize research findings. The creation of a frailty core set, consisting of a minimum set of data elements and outcomes to be measured in all frailty studies, would allow for findings from research and translational studies to be collectively analyzed to better inform care and decision-making. To achieve this, the Frailty Outcomes Consensus Project was developed to reach consensus from the international frailty community on a set of common data elements and core outcomes for frailty. METHODS: An international steering committee developed the methodology and the consensus process to be followed. The committee formulated the initial list of data elements and outcomes. Participants from across the world were invited to take part in the Delphi consensus process. The Delphi consisted of three rounds. Following review of data after three rounds, a final ranking round of data elements and outcomes was conducted. A required retention rate of 80% between rounds was set a priori. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four panelists from 25 different countries participated in the first round of the Delphi consensus process. This included researchers, clinicians, administrators, older adults, and caregivers. The retention rate between rounds was achieved. Data elements and outcomes forming primary and secondary core sets were identified, within the domains of participant characteristics, physical performance, physical function, physical health, cognition and mental health, socioenvironmental circumstances, frailty measures, and other. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that implementation and uptake of the frailty core set will enable studies to be collectively analyzed to better inform care for persons living with frailty and ultimately improve their outcomes. Future work will focus on identification of measurement tools to be used in the application of the frailty core set.

Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes (COS-COVID-PCARE Study).

BACKGROUND: People living in care homes have experienced devastating impact from COVID-19. As interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 are developed and evaluated, there is an urgent need for researchers to agree on the outcomes used when evaluating their effectiveness. Having an agreed set of outcomes that are used in all relevant trials can ensure that study results can be compared. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission in care homes. METHODS: The study used established COS methodology. A list of candidate outcomes was identified by reviewing registered trials to evaluate interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes. Seventy key stakeholders participated in a Delphi survey, rating the candidate outcomes on a nine-point scale over two rounds, with the opportunity to propose additional outcomes. Stakeholders included care home representatives (n = 19), healthcare professionals (n = 20), people with personal experience of care homes (n = 7), researchers (n = 15) and others (n = 9). Outcomes were eligible for inclusion if they met an a priori threshold. A consensus meeting with stakeholders resulted in agreement of the final outcome set. RESULTS: Following the Delphi and consensus meeting, twenty-four outcomes were recommended for inclusion. These are grouped across four domains of infection, severity of illness, mortality, and 'other' (intervention specific or life impact). Due to the considerable heterogeneity between care homes, residents, and interventions, the relevance and importance of outcomes may differ between trial contexts. Intervention-specific outcomes would be included only where relevant to a given trial, thus reducing the measurement burden. CONCLUSION: Using a rapid response approach, a COS for COVID-19 prevention interventions in care homes has been developed. Future work should focus on identifying instruments for measuring these outcomes, and the interpretation and application of the COS across different trial contexts. Beyond COVID-19, the outcomes identified in this COS may have relevance to other infectious diseases in care homes, and the rapid response approach may be useful as preparation for future pandemics.

Enhancing patient and public contribution in health outcome selection during clinical guideline development: an ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a cornerstone in enhancing healthcare research and delivery, including clinical guideline development. Health outcomes concern changes in the health status of an individual or population that are attributable to an intervention. Discussion of relevant health outcomes impacts the resulting clinical guidelines for practice. This study explores how the input of PPI contributors at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is integrated into guideline development, particularly in relation to health outcome selection. METHODS: The study used an ethnographic methodological approach. Data comprised: observations of committee meetings, scoping workshops and training sessions, and in-depth interviews with PPI contributors, health professionals and chairs from clinical guideline development committees. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: PPI contributors' input in the guideline development process was often of limited scope, particularly in selecting health outcomes. Key constraints on their input included: the technical content and language of guidelines, assumed differences in the health-related priorities between PPI contributors and health professionals, and the linear timeline of the guideline development process. However, PPI contributors can influence clinical guideline development including the selection of relevant health outcomes. This was achieved through several factors and highlights the important role of the committee chair, the importance of training and support for all committee members, the use of plain language and the opportunity for all committee members to engage. CONCLUSIONS: Lay member input during the outcome selection phase of clinical guideline development is achievable, but there are challenges to overcome. Study findings identify ways that future guideline developers can support meaningful lay involvement in guideline development and health outcome selection.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Adalimumab plus Methotrexate for Uveitis in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, is effective in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We tested the efficacy of adalimumab in the treatment of JIA-associated uveitis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in children and adolescents 2 years of age or older who had active JIA-associated uveitis. Patients who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either adalimumab (at a dose of 20 mg or 40 mg, according to body weight) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Patients continued the trial regimen until treatment failure or until 18 months had elapsed. They were followed for up to 2 years after randomization. The primary end point was the time to treatment failure, defined according to a multicomponent intraocular inflammation score that was based on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria. RESULTS: The prespecified stopping criteria were met after the enrollment of 90 of 114 patients. We observed 16 treatment failures in 60 patients (27%) in the adalimumab group versus 18 treatment failures in 30 patients (60%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.49; P<0.0001 [the prespecified stopping boundary]). Adverse events were reported more frequently in patients receiving adalimumab than in those receiving placebo (10.07 events per patient-year [95% CI, 9.26 to 10.89] vs. 6.51 events per patient-year [95% CI, 5.26 to 7.77]), as were serious adverse events (0.29 events per patient-year [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.43] vs. 0.19 events per patient-year [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab therapy controlled inflammation and was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure than placebo among children and adolescents with active JIA-associated uveitis who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate. Patients who received adalimumab had a much higher incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events than those who received placebo. (Funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and Arthritis Research UK; SYCAMORE EudraCT number, 2010-021141-41 .).

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

Can harmonisation of outcomes bridge the translation gap for pre-clinical research? A systematic review of outcomes measured in mouse models of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In pre-clinical research, systematic reviews have the potential to mitigate translational challenges by facilitating understanding of how pre-clinical studies can inform future clinical research. Yet their conduct is encumbered by heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported, and those outcomes may not always relate to the most clinically important outcomes. We aimed to systematically review outcomes measured and reported in pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions to treat high blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review of pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions aimed at addressing elevated blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes was completed. Studies were screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted from the included studies. The outcomes were recorded verbatim and classified into outcome domains using an existing outcome taxonomy. Outcomes were also compared to those identified in a systematic review of registered phase 3/4 clinical trials for glucose lowering interventions in people with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Review of 280 included studies identified 532 unique outcomes across 19 domains. No single outcome, or domain, was measured in all studies and only 132 (21%) had also been measured in registered phase 3/4 clinical trials. A core outcome set, representing the minimum that should be measured and reported, developed for type 2 diabetes effectiveness clinical trials includes 18 core outcomes, of these 12 (71%) outcomes were measured and reported in one or more of the included pre-clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity of outcomes reported in pre-clinical research. Harmonisation of outcomes across the research pathway using a core outcome set may facilitate interpretation, evidence synthesis and translational success, and may contribute to the refinement of the use of animals in research. Systematic review registration: The study was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO Database, registration number CRD42018106831.

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of web-based interventions (defined as an intervention that can be downloaded or accessed on the internet through a web browser) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased over the past two decades. Little is known about how participants' use of the intervention is measured, reported, and analyzed in these studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the evaluation of web-based interventions in RCTs, assessing study characteristics and the methods used to record, and adjust for, intervention usage. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all published reports of RCTs that involved a web-based intervention. A random sample of 100 published trials was selected for detailed data extraction. Information on trial characteristics was extracted, including whether web usage data were recorded, and if so, the methods used to gather these data and whether these data were used to inform efficacy analyses. RESULTS: A PubMed search identified 812 trials of web-based interventions published up to the end of 2017 and demonstrated a growing trend over time. Of the 100 studies reviewed, 90 studies collected web usage data, but more than half (49/90, 54%) of these studies did not state the method used for recording web usage. Only four studies attempted to check on the reliability of their web usage data collection methods. A total of 39% (35/90) studies reported patterns or levels of web intervention use, of which 21% (19/90) studies adjusted for intervention use in their outcome analysis, but only two of these used appropriate statistical methods. CONCLUSIONS: Trialists frequently report a measure of web-based intervention usage but do not always report the collection method or provide enough detail on their analysis of web usage. Appropriate statistical methods to account for intervention use are rarely used and are not well reported even in the very few trials in which they are used. The number of trialists who attempt to check on the reliability of their web usage collection methods is extremely low.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.