Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice. RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update. CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina: protocol for the ACTIVATE (Angina Controlled Trial Investigating the Value of the 'Activate your heart' Therapeutic E-intervention) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic stable angina is common and disabling. Cardiac rehabilitation is routinely offered to people following myocardial infarction or revascularisation procedures and has the potential to help people with chronic stable angina. However, there is insufficient evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for its routine use in this patient group. The objectives of this study are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 'Activate Your Heart' cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ACTIVATE is a multicentre, parallel-group, two-arm, superiority, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, with recruitment from primary and secondary care centres in England and Wales and a target sample size of 518 (1:1 allocation; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with built-in random element). The study uses secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be optimal usual care (control) and optimal usual care plus the 'Activate Your Heart' web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme (intervention). Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blinded; participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 months' follow-up. Primary outcome will be the UK version of Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-UK), physical limitations domain at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be the remaining two domains of SAQ-UK, dyspnoea, anxiety and depression, health utility, self-efficacy, physical activity and the incremental shuttle walk test. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be cost-utility analysis from health service perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the cardiac rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: North of Scotland National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval, reference 21/NS/0115. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10054455.

Outcomes of care during the last month of life: a systematic review to inform the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is a lack of standardization and consensus on which outcomes are central to assess the care provided to patients in the last month of life. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify relevant outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for the best care for the dying person. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of outcomes reported in the scientific literature about the care for the dying person in the last month of life. We searched for peer-reviewed studies published before February 2022 in four electronic databases. To categorise the outcomes, we employed the taxonomy developed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" collaboration. RESULTS: Out of the 2,933 articles retrieved, 619 were included for analyses. The majority of studies (71%) were retrospective and with data extracted from chart reviews (71%) . We extracted 1,951 outcomes in total, from which, after deletion of repeated outcomes, we identified 256 unique ones. The most frequently assessed outcomes were those related to medication or therapeutic interventions and those to hospital/ healthcare use. Outcomes related to psychosocial wellbeing were rarely assessed. The closer to death, the less frequently the outcomes were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Most outcomes were related to medical interventions or to hospital use. Only a few studies focused on other components of integrated care such as psychosocial aspects. It remains to be defined which of these outcomes are fundamental to achieve the best care for the dying.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. RESULTS: We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication.

AIMS: Population-wide, person-level, linked electronic health record data are increasingly used to estimate epidemiology, guide resource allocation, and identify events in clinical trials. The accuracy of data from NHS Digital (now part of NHS England) for identifying hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), a key HF standard, is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of NHS Digital data for identifying HHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients experiencing at least one HHF, as determined by NHS Digital data, and age- and sex-matched patients not experiencing HHF, were identified from a prospective cohort study and underwent expert adjudication. Three code sets commonly used to identify HHF were applied to the data and compared with expert adjudication (I50: International Classification of Diseases-10 codes beginning I50; OIS: Clinical Commissioning Groups Outcomes Indicator Set; and NICOR: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, used as the basis for the National Heart Failure Audit in England and Wales). Five hundred four patients underwent expert adjudication, of which 10 (2%) were adjudicated to have experienced HHF. Specificity was high across all three code sets in the first diagnosis position {I50: 96.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-97.7%]; NICOR: 93.3% [CI 90.8-95.4%]; OIS: 95.6% [CI 93.3-97.2%]} but decreased substantially as the number of diagnosis positions expanded. Sensitivity [40.0% (CI 12.2-73.8%)] and positive predictive value (PPV) [highest with I50: 17.4% (CI 8.1-33.6%)] were low in the first diagnosis position for all coding sets. PPV was higher for the National Heart Failure Audit criteria, albeit modestly [36.4% (CI 16.6-62.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS: NHS Digital data were not able to accurately identify HHF and should not be used in isolation for this purpose.

The use of healthcare systems data for RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems data (HSD) has the potential to optimise the efficiency of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by decreasing trial-specific data demands. Therefore, the use of HSD in trials is expected to increase. In 2019, it was estimated that 47% of NIHR-funded trials were planning to use HSD. We aim to understand the extent and nature of its current use and its evolution over time. METHODS: We identified a cohort of RCTs within the NIHR Journals Library that commenced after 2019 and were described as being in progress on 6 June 2022. Details on the source and use of HSD were extracted from eligible RCTs. The use of HSD was categorised according to whether it was used as the sole data source for outcomes and whether the outcomes were primary or secondary. HSD is often insufficient for patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We aimed to determine methods used by trialists for collecting PRO data alongside HSD. RESULTS: Of the 84 eligible studies, 52 (62%) planned to use HSD and 79 (94%) planned to collect PROs. The number of RCTs planning to use HSD for at least one outcome was 28 (54%) with 24 of these planning to use HSD as the sole data source for at least one outcome. The number of studies planning to use HSD for primary and secondary outcomes was 10 (20%) and 21 (40%) respectively. The sources of HSD were National Health Service (NHS) Digital (n = 37, 79%), patient registries (n = 7, 29%), primary care (n = 5, 21%), The Office for National Statistics (ONS) (n = 3, 13%) and other (n = 2, 8%). PROs were collected for 92% of the trials planning to use HSD. Methods for collection of PROs included in-person (n = 26, 54%), online (n = 22, 46%), postal (n = 18, 38%), phone (n = 14, 29%) and app (n = 2, 4%). CONCLUSIONS: HSD is being used in around two thirds of the studies but cannot yet be used to support PRO data collection within the cohort we examined. Comparison with an earlier cohort demonstrates an increase in the number of RCTs planning to use HSD.

CHronic hypERtension and L-citRulline studY (CHERRY): an Early-Phase Randomised Controlled Trial in Pregnancy.

Oral supplementation with L-citrulline, which is sequentially converted to L-arginine then nitric oxide, improves vascular biomarkers and reduces blood pressure in non-pregnant, hypertensive human cohorts and pregnant mice with a pre-eclampsia-like syndrome. This early-phase randomised feasibility trial assessed the acceptability of L-citrulline supplementation to pregnant women with chronic hypertension and its effects on maternal BP and other vascular outcomes. Pregnant women with chronic hypertension were randomised at 12-16 weeks to receive 3-g L-citrulline twice daily (n = 24) or placebo (n = 12) for 8 weeks. Pregnant women reported high acceptability of oral L-citrulline. Treatment increased maternal plasma levels of citrulline, arginine and the arginine:asymmetric dimethylarginine ratio, particularly in women reporting good compliance. L-citrulline had no effect on diastolic BP (L-citrulline: - 1.82 95% CI (- 5.86, 2.22) vs placebo: - 5.00 95% CI (- 12.76, 2.76)), uterine artery Doppler or angiogenic biomarkers. Although there was no effect on BP, retrospectively, this study was underpowered to detect BP changes < 9 mmHg, limiting the conclusions about biological effects. The increase in arginine:asymmetric dimethylarginine ratio was less than in non-pregnant populations, which likely reflects altered pharmacokinetics of pregnancy, and further pharmacokinetic assessment of L-citrulline in pregnancy is advised.Trial Registration EudraCT 2015-005792-25 (2017-12-22) and ISRCTN12695929 (2018-09-20).

Measuring the success of programmes of care for people living with dementia: a protocol for consensus building with consumers to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC).

INTRODUCTION: The Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC) project aims to deliver practical recommendations on the selection and implementation of a suite of core outcomes to measure the effectiveness of interventions for dementia care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: COM-IC embeds a participatory action approach to using the Alignment-Harmonisation-Results framework for measuring dementia care in Australia. Using this framework, suitable core outcome measures will be identified, analysed, implemented and audited. The methods for analysing each stage will be codesigned with stakeholders, through the conduit of a Stakeholder Reference Group including people living with dementia, formal and informal carers, aged care industry representatives, researchers, clinicians and policy actors. The codesigned evaluation methods consider two key factors: feasibility and acceptability. These considerations will be tested during a 6-month feasibility study embedded in aged care industry partner organisations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: COM-IC has received ethical approval from The University of Queensland (HREC 2021/HE001932). Results will be disseminated through networks established over the project, and in accordance with both the publication schedule and requests from the Stakeholder Reference Group. Full access to publications and reports will be made available through UQ eSpace (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/), an open access repository hosted by The University of Queensland.

Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study.

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments.

Rationale and design of a randomised trial of trientine in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterised by left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), myocardial fibrosis, enhanced oxidative stress and energy depletion. Unbound/loosely bound tissue copper II ions are powerful catalysts of oxidative stress and inhibitors of antioxidants. Trientine is a highly selective copper II chelator. In preclinical and clinical studies in diabetes, trientine is associated with reduced LVH and fibrosis, and improved mitochondrial function and energy metabolism. Trientine was associated with improvements in cardiac structure and function in an open-label study in patients with HCM. METHODS: The Efficacy and Mechanism of Trientine in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (TEMPEST) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, parallel group, 1:1 randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of action of trientine in patients with HCM. Patients with a diagnosis of HCM according to the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines and in New York Heart Association classes I-III are randomised to trientine or matching placebo for 52 weeks. Primary outcome is change in left ventricular (LV) mass indexed to body surface area, measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Secondary efficacy objectives will determine whether trientine improves exercise capacity, reduces arrhythmia burden, reduces cardiomyocyte injury, improves LV and atrial function, and reduces LV outflow tract gradient. Mechanistic objectives will determine whether the effects are mediated by cellular or extracellular mass regression and improved myocardial energetics. CONCLUSION: TEMPEST will determine the efficacy and mechanism of action of trientine in patients with HCM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04706429 and ISRCTN57145331.

Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The importance of including patients, carers, and the public in health research is well recognized, including the need to consider outcomes in health care research that reflect the priorities of patients. Core outcome sets (COS) define the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research of a given condition, determined through consensus among key stakeholders. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative undertakes an annual systematic review (SR) to identify newly published COS to update its online database of COS for research. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient participation on COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: SR methods used in previous updates were applied to identify research studies published or indexed in 2020 and 2021 (conducted as separate reviews) that report development of a COS, regardless of any specifications relating to condition, population, intervention, or setting. Studies were assessed according to published standards for COS development, and core outcomes extracted from study publications were categorized according to an outcome taxonomy and added to an existing database of core outcome classifications of all previously published COS. The effect of patient participation on core domains was examined. RESULTS: Searches identified 56 new studies published in 2020 and 54 in 2021. All studies met all four minimum standards for scope, and 42 (75%) of the 2020 studies and 45 (83%) of the 2021 studies met all three standards for stakeholders involved. However, only 19 (34%) of the 2020 studies and 18 (33%) of the 2021 studies met all four standards for the consensus process. COS that involved patients or their representatives are more likely to include life impact outcomes (239, 86%) than COS without patient participation (193, 62%). Physiological/clinical outcomes are almost always specified at a granular level, whereas life impact outcomes are often described at a higher level. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the importance and impact of including patients, carers, and the public in COS development, in particular by demonstrating that the impact of interventions on patients' lives is more likely to be represented in COS that involve patients or their representatives. COS developers are encouraged to pay increased attention to methods and reporting relating to the consensus process. Further work is required to understand the appropriateness and rationale for the discrepancy in granularity levels between outcome domains.

Treatment Adherence in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Pirfenidone in HFpEF: Determinants and Impact on Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Medication adherence in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. This study sought to evaluate treatment adherence in the Pirfenidone in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (PIROUETTE) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adherence was evaluated through pill counts and diary cards. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to assess the relationship between adherence and baseline characteristics. Instrumental variable regression was used to estimate the causal effect of pirfenidone treatment duration on myocardial fibrosis. Complete adherence data were available in 54 of 80 participants completing the trial. Mean adherence to study medication was 94.7% and 96.9% in the pirfenidone and placebo groups, respectively. Each additional day of treatment with pirfenidone resulted in a significant decrease in myocardial extracellular volume (-0.004%; 95% confidence interval: -0.007% to -0.001%; P = 0.007). Associations with adherence included older age, higher symptom burden, lower body weight, and smaller right ventricular size. CONCLUSION: Adherence to study medication in the PIROUETTE trial was very high among patients for whom complete adherence data were available. Importantly, each additional day of treatment reduced myocardial fibrosis. Potential predictors of adherence were identified. Implementation of improved methods for assessing adherence is required.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care.

OBJECTIVES: Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods. METHODS: Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting. RESULTS: Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%). CONCLUSION: An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Use of an Online Forum for Relatives of People With Psychosis and Bipolar Disorder: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder experience high levels of distress but are typically not offered the support they need. Online peer forums may offer a solution, but knowledge about who uses them, how, and why is limited. This study reported on online forum use during the Relatives Education and Coping Toolkit (REACT) trial. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report who used the forum and why; how sociodemographic factors are associated with participation; the relationship among frequency, type of use, and outcomes; and how the forum was used. METHODS: The relationships between key sociodemographic characteristics, levels of forum use, and distress were statistically analyzed. We used thematic and semantic analyses to understand the reasons for relatives joining the forum and the key topics initiated by them. We also used the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Semantic Analysis System to compare how relatives and REACT supporters (moderators) used the forum. RESULTS: A total of 348 participants with full forum use data from REACT were included in this study. The forum was accessed by 59.4% (207/348) of the relatives across the entire age range, with no significant associations between sociodemographic factors and forum participation, or between level or type of use and relatives' distress levels. Relatives joined the forum primarily to find people in similar circumstances, express concerns, and talk about stressful events. Relatives were most concerned about recent events, negative emotions linked to caring, experiences of conflict or threat, and concerns about suicide. These posts underscored both the challenges the relatives were facing and the fact that they felt safe sharing them in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Although only a proportion of REACT participants engaged actively with its forum, they were widely distributed across age and other sociodemographic groupings. Relatives used the forum for information, support, and guidance and to offer detailed information about their experiences. The topics raised highlighted the burden carried by relatives and the potential value of easy-access, moderated, peer-supported forums in helping relatives to manage the challenges they faced.

Impact of Myocardial Fibrosis on Cardiovascular Structure, Function and Functional Status in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Myocardial fibrosis, measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance extracellular volume (ECV), is associated with adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but the mechanisms by which myocardial fibrosis exerts this deleterious effect are unclear. We performed mediation analyses of data from the Pirfenidone in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (PIROUETTE) trial to determine whether myocardial fibrotic regression causes changes in cardiovascular function and functional status following antifibrotic therapy. Regression of myocardial fibrosis correlated with improvements in 6-min walk test and KCCQ clinical summary score. The only outcome variable that demonstrated a treatment effect was an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The estimated average causal mediation effects of myocardial ECV, absolute myocardial extracellular matrix volume and absolute myocardial cellular volume on LVEF were 6.1%, 21.5% and 13.7%, respectively, none of which was significant and therefore not mediated by myocardial fibrosis. (PIROUETTE; NCT02932566).

Characteristics Associated With Growth Differentiation Factor 15 in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and the Impact of Pirfenidone.

Background Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and is associated with adverse outcome, but its relationship with myocardial fibrosis and other characteristics remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the effect of pirfenidone, a novel antifibrotic agent, on GDF-15 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and identify characteristics that associate with GDF-15 and with change in GDF-15 over 1 year. Methods and Results Among patients enrolled (n=107) in the PIROUETTE (Pirfenidone in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction) trial, GDF-15 was measured at baseline and at prespecified time points in patients randomized (n=94) to pirfenidone or placebo. The response of GDF-15 to pirfenidone and the association with baseline patient characteristics were evaluated. Pirfenidone had no impact on circulating GDF-15 at any time point during the 52-week trial period. In multivariable analysis, male sex, diabetes, higher circulating levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, lower renal function, and shorter 6-minute walk test distance at baseline were associated with baseline log-GDF-15. Impaired global longitudinal strain at baseline was the strongest predictor of increased GDF-15 over 52 weeks. Conclusions In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, circulating levels of GDF-15 were unaffected by treatment with pirfenidone and do not appear to be determined by myocardial fibrosis. Circulating GDF-15 was associated with a spectrum of important heart failure characteristics and it may represent a marker of overall physiological disruption. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02932566; Unique identifier: NCT02932566.

Predictors of myocardial fibrosis and response to anti-fibrotic therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Myocardial fibrosis, measured using magnetic resonance extracellular volume (ECV), associates with adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In the PIROUETTE (The Pirfenidone in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction) trial, the novel anti-fibrotic agent pirfenidone reduced myocardial fibrosis. We sought to identify baseline characteristics that associate with myocardial fibrotic burden, the change in myocardial fibrosis over a year, and predict response to pirfenidone in patients with HFpEF. Amongst patients enrolled in the PIROUETTE trial (n = 107), linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between baseline variables and baseline myocardial ECV, with change in myocardial ECV adjusting for treatment allocation, and to identify variables that modified the pirfenidone treatment effect. Body mass index, left atrial reservoir strain, haemoglobin and aortic distensibility were associated with baseline ECV in stepwise modelling, and systolic blood pressure, and log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide were associated with baseline ECV in clinically-guided modelling. QRS duration, left ventricular mass and presence of an infarct at baseline were associated with an increase in ECV from baseline to week 52. Whilst QRS duration, presence of an infarct, global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain modified the treatment effect of pirfenidone when considered individually, no variable modified treatment effect on multivariable modelling. Baseline characteristics were identified that associate with myocardial fibrosis and predict change in myocardial fibrosis. No variables that independently modify the treatment effect of pirfenidone were identified (PIROUETTE, NCT02932566).

Substantial heterogeneity found in reporting mortality in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets in COMET database.

OBJECTIVE: To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorized according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorized. RESULTS: In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorized. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied. CONCLUSION: Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research.