The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

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.

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.

Using behavioral science to increase core outcome set use in trials.

OBJECTIVES: Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed sets of outcomes for use in clinical trials, which can increase standardization and reduce heterogeneity of outcomes in research. Using a COS, or not, is a behavior that can potentially be increased using behavioral strategies. The aim of this study was to identify behavioral intervention components to potentially increase use of COS in trials. METHODS: This project was informed by the Behavior Change Wheel framework. Two reviewers extracted barriers and facilitators to COS use from four recently published studies examining COS use in trials. Barriers and facilitators were coded to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model, which forms part of the Behavior Change Wheel. COM-B findings were mapped to intervention functions by two reviewers, and then mapped to behavior change techniques (BCTs). Full-team Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/Cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side effects/Safety, Equity ratings were used to reach consensus on intervention functions and BCTs. BCTs were operationalized using examples of tangible potential applications and were categorized based on similarity. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified for all capability, opportunity and motivation aspects of the COM-B model. Five intervention functions (education, training, enablement, persuasion, and modeling) and 15 BCTs were identified. Thirty-six BCT examples were developed, including providing information on benefits of COS for health research, and information choosing COS. BCT examples are categorized by approaches related to "workshops," "guidance," "audio/visual resources," and "other resources." CONCLUSION: Study findings represent diverse ways to potentially increase COS use in trials. Future work is needed to examine effects of these behavioral intervention components on COS use. If effective, increased use of COS can improve outcome reporting and minimize outcome heterogeneity and research waste.

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.

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models.

BACKGROUND: Trial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units. METHODS: Three stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: A total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Several key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

Identification and Assessment of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review of surgically managed Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMI). OBJECTIVE: A core outcome set (COS) defines agreed outcomes which should be reported as a minimum in any research study for a specific condition. This study identified OMIs used in the wider CES literature and compare these to the established CESCOS. METHODS: To identify measurement methods and instruments in the CES surgical outcome evidence base, a systematic review was performed. Medline, Embase and CINAHL plus databases were queried. In addition, a secondary search for validation studies of measurement instruments in CES was undertaken. Identified studies from this search were subject to the COSMIN risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: In total, 112 studies were identified investigating surgical outcomes for CES. The majority (80%, n = 90) of these OMI studies were retrospective in nature and only 55% (n = 62) utilised a measurement method or instrument. The remaining 50 studies used study specific definitions for surgical outcomes defined within their methods. Of the 59 measurement instruments identified, 60% (n = 38 instruments) were patient reported outcome measures. Only one validated instrument was identified, which was a patient reported outcome measure. The validated instrument was not used in any study identified in the initial search (to identify measurement instruments). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the wide heterogeneity of measurement instruments used in surgically managed CES research. Subsequently, there is need for consensus agreement on which instrument or instruments should be used to measure each core outcome for CES surgical outcomes.

Quantifying the carbon footprint of clinical trials: guidance development and case studies.

BACKGROUND: The urgency of the climate crisis requires attention from biomedical research, not least clinical trials which can involve significant greenhouse gas emissions. The Low Carbon Clinical Trials Working Group set out a strategy to reduce the emissions of clinical trials, starting with the development of a method to measure their carbon footprint (CO2e). METHODS: As a first step, we developed a process map defining clinical trial core activities. Corresponding emission factors were sourced to convert activity data into greenhouse gas emissions. The subsequent method was applied to two Cancer Research UK (CRUK)-funded trials (the international randomised sarcoma trial CASPS (ISRCTN63733470) and the UK cohort-based breast cancer trial PRIMETIME (ISRCTN41579286)). A guidance document defining the scope, method and assumptions was written to allow application to any publicly funded/investigator initiated clinical trial. RESULTS: Trial specific activities over and above routine care were grouped into 10 modules covering trial set up, conduct and closure. We identified emission factors for all trial activities within both trials and used them to estimate their total carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of CASPS, an international phase 2 trial of an investigational medicinal product with 47 participants, was 72 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to clinical trials unit emissions and staff travel. PRIMETIME, a UK-based phase 3 non-investigational medicinal product trial with 1962 patients, produced 89 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to trial-specific in-person participant assessments. CONCLUSION: We have developed a method and guidance that trialists can use to determine the carbon footprint of clinical trials. The guidance can be used to identify carbon hotspots where alternative approaches to trial design and conduct could reduce a trial footprint, and where methodology research is required to investigate the potential impact of interventions taken to reduce carbon emissions. We will continue to refine the guidance to increase the potential application and improve usability.

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.

Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process.

Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.

Opening up ideas: an advent calendar for patient and public engagement in clinical trials research.

The involvement of patients and the public in research is now an expectation in research with funders requesting a clear plan of involvement and engagement. In the United Kingdom involvement typically focuses on research prioritisation, design and delivery, in contrast activities that share the results of research or research methods more generally are considered to be engagement. Clinical trials tend to concentrate on involvement activities with less emphasis on engagement. To promote engagement activities in the context of clinical trials we asked people attending the 2022 International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference to share ideas on how we can best engage with patients and the public. Responses were reviewed and 22 themes identified. One suggestion was to create an advent calendar and so these 22 themes plus two from the authors were used as a daily tweet from the 1st to the 24th December 2022. Here we share these ideas and draw comparisons between engagement activities in research and traditions of the Christmas period. The ideas shared are not intended as a definitive list but instead a novel way to start discussions between experts by experience, researchers, health professionals and communities to facilitate co-production of meaningful engagement strategies.

Patient and public involvement and engagement are terms used to describe specific activities that have a variety of goals from information giving through topublic co-production of research. Involvement and engagement are important as they can help reduce waste in research by ensuring that the research is relevant, conducted well and that the results are shared to those that will use them to make decisions about treatments, including patients. In the United Kingdom the term "engagement" usually refers to activities that focus mainly on information giving, for example sharing the results of research or information about how research is done in general. In this commentary we share ideas for engagement activities that were collected from people attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in 2022. One of the ideas shared was to have an advent calendar and we have used this to draw comparisons between traditions surrounding the Christmas period and engagement of patients and the public. We share 24 different ideas in the form of a printable advent calendar and invite the clinical trials community, including experts by experience, to reflect on these to generate more ideas for meaningful engagement activities so that everyone who will use the results of research has the opportunity to shape, share, and benefit from research.

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.

Clinical trials of pneumonia management assess heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To inform clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of pneumonia need to address the outcomes that are most important to patients and health professionals using consistent instruments, to enable results to be compared, contrasted, and combined as appropriate. This systematic review describes the outcomes reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on a prospective protocol, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries for ongoing or completed clinical trials evaluating pneumonia management in adults in any clinical setting. We grouped reported outcomes thematically and classified them following the COMET Initiative's taxonomy. We describe instruments used for assessing each outcome. RESULTS: We found 280 eligible RCTs of which 115 (41.1%) enrolled critically ill patients and 165 (58.9%) predominantly noncritically ill patients. We identified 43 distinct outcomes and 108 measurement instruments, excluding nonvalidated scores and questionnaires. Almost all trials reported clinical/physiological outcomes (97.5%). Safety (63.2%), mortality (56.4%), resource use (48.6%) and life impact (11.8%) outcomes were less frequently addressed. The most frequently reported outcomes were treatment success (60.7%), mortality (56.4%) and adverse events (41.1%). There was significant variation in the selection of measurement instruments, with approximately two-thirds used in less than 10 of the 280 RCTs. None of the patient-reported outcomes were used in 10 or more RCTs. CONCLUSION: This review reveals significant variation in outcomes and measurement instruments reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management. Outcomes that are important to patients and health professionals are often omitted. Our findings support the need for a rigorous core outcome set, such as that being developed by the European Respiratory Society.

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.

Selective outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of outcome reporting bias (ORB, i.e. selective reporting according to the results observed) across primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 3 February 2021 for reviews published 2008-2020 with at least one RCT of a therapeutic intervention, for participants with stroke or TIA, and a safety or efficacy outcome. We took a random sample of these RCTs and included those with a trial registry record or protocol published before reporting results. Two reviewers assessed discrepancies in outcome reporting across the trial registry record, protocol, statistical analysis plan, and publication for each RCT, using the classification system designed by the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials group. RESULTS: Of 600 RCTs, we identified a trial registry record in 120 (20%), a protocol in 28 (5%), and a statistical analysis plan in 5 (1%) with 123 (21%) distinct RCTs being eligible for assessment: 110 (89%, 95% CI 83-94) were at no risk, 7 (6%, 95% CI 3-11) RCTs were at low risk, and 6 (5%, 95% CI 2-10) were at high risk of ORB. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of ORB in primary outcomes was low in stroke/TIA RCTs that were included in Cochrane reviews and had an identifiable trial registry record or protocol. Concerningly, we were unable to identify a trial registry record or protocol in most of our sample. CONCLUSION: Work is needed to further reduce ORB in stroke/TIA RCTs and explore the generalisability of these findings to RCTs outside of Cochrane reviews or without a registry record or protocol, as well as to secondary outcomes.

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.

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.