ArCH: improving the performance of clonal hematopoiesis variant calling and interpretation.

MOTIVATION: The acquisition of somatic mutations in hematopoietic stem and progenitor stem cells with resultant clonal expansion, termed clonal hematopoiesis (CH), is associated with increased risk of hematologic malignancies and other adverse outcomes. CH is generally present at low allelic fractions, but clonal expansion and acquisition of additional mutations leads to hematologic cancers in a small proportion of individuals. With high depth and high sensitivity sequencing, CH can be detected in most adults and its clonal trajectory mapped over time. However, accurate CH variant calling is challenging due to the difficulty in distinguishing low frequency CH mutations from sequencing artifacts. The lack of well-validated bioinformatic pipelines for CH calling may contribute to lack of reproducibility in studies of CH. RESULTS: Here, we developed ArCH, an Artifact filtering Clonal Hematopoiesis variant calling pipeline for detecting single nucleotide variants and short insertions/deletions by combining the output of four variant calling tools and filtering based on variant characteristics and sequencing error rate estimation. ArCH is an end-to-end cloud-based pipeline optimized to accept a variety of inputs with customizable parameters adaptable to multiple sequencing technologies, research questions, and datasets. Using deep targeted sequencing data generated from six acute myeloid leukemia patient tumor: normal dilutions, 31 blood samples with orthogonal validation, and 26 blood samples with technical replicates, we show that ArCH improves the sensitivity and positive predictive value of CH variant detection at low allele frequencies compared to standard application of commonly used variant calling approaches. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code for this workflow is available at: https://github.com/kbolton-lab/ArCH.

Accuracy of Cytologic vs Histologic Specimens for Assessment of Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells, evaluated by immunohistochemistry, guides the use of immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed in cytologic vs paired histologic specimens in patients with NSCLC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through June 1, 2021. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed on cytologic specimens compared with the reference standard of histologic specimens, analyzed at the PD-L1 expression cutoffs (tumor proportion score) ≥ 1% and ≥ 50%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, and associated 95% CIs, were estimated using bivariate generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included, encompassing a total of 1,064 pairs of histology specimens and cytology cell blocks, and 267 pairs of histology specimens and direct smears. Among these, 946 paired specimens were acquired without interval treatment between the collection of histology and cytology samples. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens compared with paired histology specimens at the PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. When only paired specimens acquired without interval treatment were considered, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens at PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Cytologic specimens provide an accurate assessment of PD-L1 expression in most patients with NSCLC, at both ≥ 1% and ≥ 50% cutoffs, when compared with histologic specimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020153279; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based self-guided hand exercise program to improve hand function in people with systemic sclerosis: the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Hand Exercise Program (SPIN-HAND) trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. Functional impairment of hands is common. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN)-HAND trial compared effects of offering access to an online self-guided hand exercise program to usual care on hand function (primary) and functional health outcomes (secondary) in people with SSc with at least mild hand function limitations. METHODS: The pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group cohort multiple randomized controlled trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort. Cohort participants with Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS) scores ≥ 3 and who indicated interest in using the SPIN-HAND Program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to an offer of program access or to usual care (targeted N = 586). The SPIN-HAND program consists of 4 modules that address (1) thumb flexibility and strength; (2) finger bending; (3) finger extension; and (4) wrist flexibility and strength. The primary outcome analysis compared CHFS scores 3 months post-randomization between participants offered versus not offered the program. Secondary outcomes were CHFS scores 6 months post-randomization and functional health outcomes (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System profile version 2.0 domain scores) 3 and 6 months post-randomization. RESULTS: In total, 466 participants were randomized to intervention offer (N = 280) or usual care (N = 186). Of 280 participants offered the intervention, 170 (61%) consented to access the program. Of these, 117 (69%) viewed at least one hand exercise instruction video and 77 (45%) logged into the program website at least 3 times. In intent-to-treat analyses, CHFS scores were 1.2 points lower (95% CI - 2.8 to 0.3) for intervention compared to usual care 3 months post-randomization and 0.1 points lower (95% CI - 1.8 to 1.6 points) 6 months post-randomization. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: The offer to use the SPIN-HAND Program did not improve hand function. Low offer uptake, program access, and minimal usage among those who accessed the program limited our ability to determine if using the program would improve function. To improve engagement, the program could be tested in a group format or as a resource to support care provided by a physical or occupational therapist. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03419208 . Registered on February 1, 2018.

Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND).

Purpose: The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) online hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND), is an online self-help program of hand exercises designed to improve hand function for people with scleroderma. The objective of this feasibility trial was to evaluate aspects of feasibility for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of the SPIN-HAND program. Materials and Methods: The feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN cohort and utilized the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. In the cmRCT design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about trials conducted using the cohort. When trials were conducted in the cohort, participants randomized to the intervention were informed and consented to access the intervention. Participants randomized to control were not informed that they have not received an intervention. All participants eligible and randomized to participate in the trial were included in analyses on an intent-to-treat basis. Cohort participants with a Cochin Hand Function Scale score ≥ 3/90 and an interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention were randomized (1:1 ratio) to be offered as usual care plus the SPIN-HAND Program or usual care for 3 months. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews. Results: Of the 40 randomized participants, 24 were allocated to SPIN-HAND and 16 to usual care. Of 24 participants randomized to be offered SPIN-HAND, 15 (63%) consented to use the program. Usage of SPIN-HAND content among the 15 participants who consented to use the program was low; only five (33%) logged in more than twice. Participants found the content relevant and easy to understand (satisfaction rating 8.5/10, N = 6). Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly. The required technical support was minimal. Conclusions: Trial methodology functioned as designed, and the SPIN-HAND Program was feasibly delivered; however, the acceptance of the offer and use of program content among accepters were low. Adjustments to information provided to potential participants will be implemented in the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial to attempt to increase offer acceptance.

Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program.

BACKGROUND: The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed an online self-management program (SPIN-SELF) designed to improve disease-management self-efficacy in people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, or scleroderma). The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility aspects for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF Program. METHODS: This feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort and utilized the cohort multiple RCT design. In this design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about the trial. Participants in the intervention arm are informed and provide consent, but not the control group. Forty English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants from Canada, the USA, or the UK with low disease-management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale [SEMCD] score ≤ 7) who were interested in using an online self-management program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to be offered the SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. Program usage was examined via automated usage logs. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews. Trial personnel time requirements and implementation challenges were logged. RESULTS: Of 40 SPIN Cohort participants randomized, 26 were allocated to SPIN-SELF and 14 to usual care. Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly, except that two participants with SEMCD scores > 7 (scores of 7.2 and 7.3, respectively) were included, which was caused by a system programming error that rounded SEMCD scores. Of 26 SPIN Cohort participants offered the SPIN-SELF Program, only 9 (35%) consented to use the program. Usage logs showed that use of the SPIN-SELF Program was low: 2 of 9 users (22%) logged into the program only once (median = 3), and 4 of 9 (44%) accessed none or only 1 of the 9 program's modules (median = 2). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will lead to substantial changes for the planned full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF Program that we will incorporate into a planned additional feasibility trial with progression to a full-scale trial. These changes include transitioning to a conventional RCT design with pre-randomization consent and supplementing the online self-help with peer-facilitated videoconference-based groups to enhance engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03914781 . Registered 16 April 2019.

Sexual and romantic relationships among people experiencing homelessness: A scoping review.

Homelessness is widely recognized as a pervasive issue. Despite increasing research on factors affecting the health and well-being of people who are homeless, one that remains relatively understudied is the role of romantic and sexual relationships. Given that this population has the same needs for intimacy and closeness as anyone else, it is important to understand how these relationships occur, what barriers exist in developing and maintaining them, and what is their impact. This scoping review aimed to (a) characterize the nature of research that has examined sexual and romantic relationships among people who are homeless and (b) identify and synthesize the findings of studies that examined romantic and sexual relationships among people who are homeless. Of 539 studies that examined sexual or romantic relationships among people who are homeless, 88.87% examined sexual health risk, 11.13% examined sexual victimization, 5.57% examined survival sex, and 2.41% examined consensual sexual or romantic relationships. Of the studies that examined consensual sexual or romantic relationships substantially (n = 13) all used qualitative methods and identified common themes such as love, romance, and emotional support; partner relationships as transactional; barriers to partner relationships; and casual sex and pleasure. Despite the possible benefits of sexual and romantic relationships in the context of homelessness, researchers instead have primarily focused on possible risks associated with sex. We introduce how sexual citizenship can be applied to understand how current practices and policies limit people's civic participation when homeless. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary). METHODS: This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort ( http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort ) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited. DISCUSSION: The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04246528 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

Effects of a multi-faceted education and support programme on anxiety symptoms among people with systemic sclerosis and anxiety during COVID-19 (SPIN-CHAT): a two-arm parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No trials have tested multifaceted mental health interventions recommended by public health organisations during COVID-19. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program on anxiety symptoms and other mental health outcomes among people vulnerable during COVID-19 owing to a pre-existing medical condition. METHODS: The SPIN-CHAT Trial was a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial (1:1 allocation to intervention or waitlist). Eligible participants with systemic sclerosis were recruited from the international SPIN COVID-19 Cohort. SPIN COVID-19 Cohort participants were eligible for the trial if they completed baseline measures and had at least mild anxiety symptoms, had not tested positive for COVID-19, and were not currently receiving mental health counselling. SPIN-CHAT is a 4-week (3 sessions per week) videoconference-based group intervention that provided education and practice with mental health coping strategies, and provided social support to reduce isolation. Groups included 6-10 participants. The primary outcome analysed in the intention-to-treat population was anxiety symptoms (PROMIS Anxiety 4a version 1.0) immediately post-intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04335279 and is complete. FINDINGS: Of participants who completed baseline measures between April 9, 2020, and April 27, 2020, 560 participants were eligible and 172 participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n=86) or waitlist (n=86). Mean age was 55·0 years (SD 11·4 years), 162 (94%) were women, and 136 (79%) identified as White. In intention-to-treat analyses, the intervention did not significantly reduce anxiety symptoms post-intervention (-1·57 points, 95% CI -3·59 to 0·45; standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·22 points) but reduced symptoms 6 weeks later (-2·36 points, 95% CI -4·56 to -0·16; SMD -0·31). Depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks post-intervention (-1·64 points, 95% CI -2·91 to -0·37; SMD -0·31); no other secondary outcomes were significant. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The intervention did not significantly improve anxiety symptoms or other mental health outcomes post-intervention. However, anxiety and depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks later, potentially capturing the time it took for new skills and social support between intervention participants to affect mental health. Multi-faceted interventions such as SPIN-CHAT have potential to address mental health needs in vulnerable groups during COVID-19, yet uncertainty remains about effectiveness. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; VR4-172745, MS1-173066); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund; Scleroderma Canada, made possible by an educational grant for patient support programming from Boehringer Ingelheim; the Scleroderma Society of Ontario; Scleroderma Manitoba; Scleroderma Atlantic; Scleroderma Australia; Scleroderma New South Wales; Scleroderma Victoria; Scleroderma Queensland; Scleroderma SASK; the Scleroderma Association of BC; and Sclérodermie Québec.

Perceived Benefits and Facilitators and Barriers to Providing Psychosocial Interventions for Informal Caregivers of People with Rare Diseases: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefits, and barriers and facilitators to providing psychosocial support to caregivers to a loved one with a rare disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our scoping review was to map evidence on (1) perceived benefits and (2) barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining services. METHODS: The CINAHL and PubMed databases were searched in December 2018. Qualitative and quantitative studies in any language that described perceived or tested benefits of participating in psychosocial interventions for caregivers, or the barriers and facilitators of providing these interventions, were eligible. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. Interventions were behavioural or psychological, supportive, educational, or multicomponent. All included studies reported on the benefits of participating in psychosocial interventions; 14 (41%) studies also reported on facilitators and 19 (56%) reported on barriers. Benefits that were most commonly found included statistically significant improvements in emotional states (e.g. stress) and caregiver burden and narrative reports of intervention helpfulness. Statistically significant improvements in mental health outcomes (e.g. depression symptoms) were rarely detected. Four themes for facilitators were identified, including intervention characteristics, intervention delivery characteristics, provision of necessary resources, and support provided outside of the intervention. Four barrier themes were also identified: misalignment of intervention to caregiver needs, inability to make time for intervention, practical barriers, emotional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions for caregivers to a loved one with a rare disease may be helpful in reducing stress, burden, and feelings of isolation among caregivers. Future research should design interventions for caregivers that take into account facilitators and barriers to establishing and maintaining such interventions.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The producers of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may not disclose industry funding in their CPGs. We reviewed Canadian national CPGs to examine the existence and disclosure of industry-related organizational funding in the CPGs, financial conflicts of interest of committee members and organizational procedures for managing financial conflicts of interest. METHODS: For this descriptive study, we searched the asset map of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance and the CPG Infobase for CPGs published between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 30, 2018. Eligible guidelines had to have a national focus and either a first-line drug recommendation or a screening recommendation leading to drug treatment. One investigator reviewed all CPG titles to exclude those that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently reviewed all remaining guidelines and extracted data. We analyzed the data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 21 CPGs: 3 from government-sponsored organizations, 9 from disease or condition interest groups and 9 from medical professional societies. None of the 3 government-sponsored organizations reported industry funding, and none of their committee members disclosed financial conflicts of interest. Among the 18 disease or condition interest groups and medical professional societies, 14 (93%) of the 15 that disclosed funding sources on websites (3 did not disclose) reported organizational funding from industry, but none disclosed this information in the CPGs; 12 (86%) of the 14 with conflict-of-interest disclosure statements in the CPG (4 did not include disclosures) had at least 1 committee member with a financial conflict (mean proportion of committee members with a conflict 56%); and for all 8 CPGs with identifiable chairs or cochairs (chairs or cochairs not reported for 10) at least 1 of these people had a financial conflict of interest. None of the guidelines described a plan to manage organizational financial conflicts of interest. INTERPRETATION: Canadian CPGs are vulnerable to industry influence through funding of producers of guidelines and through the financial conflicts of interest of committee members. The CPG producers that receive industry funding should disclose organizational financial conflicts in the CPGs, should engage independent oversight committees and should restrict voting on recommendations to guideline panelists who have no financial conflicts.

Protocol for a partially nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the scleroderma patient-centered intervention network COVID-19 home-isolation activities together (SPIN-CHAT) program to reduce anxiety among at-risk scleroderma patients.

OBJECTIVE: Contagious disease outbreaks and related restrictions can lead to negative psychological outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested interventions to reduce mental health consequences of contagious disease outbreaks. The primary objective of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Trial is to evaluate the effect of a videoconference-based program on symptoms of anxiety. Secondary objectives include evaluating effects on symptoms of depression, stress, loneliness, boredom, physical activity, and social interaction. METHODS: The SPIN-CHAT Trial is a pragmatic RCT that will be conducted using the SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort, a sub-cohort of the SPIN Cohort. Eligible participants will be SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort participants without a positive COVID-19 test, with at least mild anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0 T-score ≥ 55), not working from home, and not receiving current counselling or psychotherapy. We will randomly assign 162 participants to intervention groups of 7 to 10 participants each or waitlist control. We will use a partially nested RCT design to reflect dependence between individuals in training groups but not in the waitlist control. The SPIN-CHAT Program includes activity engagement, education on strategies to support mental health, and mutual participant support. Intervention participants will receive the 4-week (3 sessions per week) SPIN-CHAT Program via videoconference. The primary outcome is PROMIS Anxiety 4a score immediately post-intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The SPIN-CHAT Trial will test whether a brief videoconference-based intervention will improve mental health outcomes among at-risk individuals during contagious disease outbreak.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a rare disease that often results in significant disruptions to activities of daily living and can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being. Because there is no known cure, SSc treatment focuses on reducing symptoms and disability and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Self-management programs are known to increase self-efficacy for disease management in many chronic diseases. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed a Web-based self-management program (SPIN self-management; SPIN-SELF) to increase self-efficacy for disease management and to improve HRQoL for patients with SSc. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF program by evaluating the trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and participant acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. METHODS: The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will be conducted via the SPIN Cohort. The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cohort multiple RCT design. In total, 40 English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants with low disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale score ≤7), who have indicated interest in using a Web-based self-management program, will be randomized with a 3:2 ratio into the SPIN-SELF program or usual care for 3 months. Feasibility outcomes include trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and patient acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. RESULTS: Enrollment of the 40 participants occurred between July 5, 2019, and July 27, 2019. By November 25, 2019, data collection of trial outcomes was completed. Data analysis is underway, and results are expected to be published in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIN-SELF program is a self-help tool that may improve disease-management self-efficacy and improve HRQoL in patients with SSc. The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will ensure that trial methodology is robust, feasible, and consistent with trial participant expectations. The results will guide adjustments that need to be implemented before undertaking a full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF program. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16799.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Defining and Evaluating Overdiagnosis in Mental Health: A Meta-Research Review.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis is thought to be common in some mental disorders, but it has not been defined or examined systematically. Assessing overdiagnosis in mental health requires a consistently applied definition that differentiates overdiagnosis from other problems (e.g., misdiagnosis), as well as methods for quantification. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) describe how the term "overdiagnosis" has been defined explicitly or implicitly in published articles on mental disorders, including usages consistent (overdefinition, overdetection) and inconsistent (misdiagnosis, false-positive test results, overtreatment, overtesting) with accepted definitions of overdiagnosis; and (2) identify examples of attempts to quantify overdiagnosis. METHOD: We searchedPubMed through January 5, 2019. Articles on mental disorders, excluding neurocognitive disorders, were eligible if they usedthe term "overdiagnosis" in the title, abstract, or text. RESULTS: We identified 164 eligible articles with 193 total explicit or implicit uses of the term "overdiagnosis." Of 9 articles with an explicit definition, only one provided a definition that was partially consistent with accepted definitions. Of all uses, 11.4% were consistent, and 76.7% were related to misdiagnosis and thus inconsistent. No attempts to quantify the proportion of patients who were overdiagnosed based on overdetection or overdefinition were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There are few examples of mental health articles that describe overdiagnosis consistent with accepted definitions and no examples of quantifying overdiagnosis based on these definitions. A definition of overdiagnosis based on diagnostic criteria that include people with transient or mild symptoms not amenable to treatment (overdefinition) could be used to quantify the extent of overdiagnosis in mental disorders.

Effects of training and support programs for leaders of illness-based support groups: commentary and updated evidence.

BACKGROUND: Peer-led support groups play an important role in supporting people with chronic diseases. They may be particularly important for people with rare diseases who typically do not have access to professional support options that focus on their disease-specific needs. Many peer-led support groups in rare diseases, however, are not sustained, and many patients do not have access to support groups. Training and education for peer support group leaders could address barriers to initiating and sustaining groups, but there is little evidence on the effectiveness of support group leader training programs. A previous systematic review evaluated the effects of training programs for peer leaders of support groups for people with medical illness on leader and support group outcomes, but it identified only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared high- and low-resource training programs for cancer support group leaders. The trial did not find evidence that the high-resource program was more effective, but was limited by a small sample size and serious methodological limitations. To meet the needs of people living with the rare autoimmune connective tissue disease scleroderma, the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network has partnered with patient organizations to develop the Scleroderma Support group Leader EDucation Program, and a full-scale RCT to test the effectiveness of the program is planned. To verify the need for such a trial, we updated the previous systematic review. UPDATED EVIDENCE: Review methods for the update were unchanged from the initial review. The updated database search yielded 1504 unique citations in addition to the 9757 assessed for eligibility in the previous review. All additional citations identified in the updated search were excluded at the title and abstract review stage. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review update found that there is presently insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of training and support programs for peer leaders of disease-based support groups, highlighting the need for well-designed and rigorously conducted RCTs to examine the effects of training for peer leaders of support groups, especially in a rare disease context. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network's trial of the Scleroderma Support group Leader EDucation Program will serve as such a trial. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018096369.

The Scleroderma Research Topics Survey for patients and health care professionals: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Project.

Involving patients and health care professionals in research has been shown to be a useful strategy to generate program development ideas and establish research priorities. Online surveys can be used to identify patient research priorities. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network is an international collaboration dedicated to researching problems important to people with scleroderma and developing, testing, and disseminating educational, self-management, rehabilitation, and psychological tools to support coping within the disease. The objectives of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Scleroderma Research Topics Survey were to (1) obtain input on online programs that Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network could develop, (2) identify research topics important to members of the scleroderma community that could be addressed via the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort, and (3) identify potentially understudied groups. Eligible survey respondents included individuals with scleroderma and their caregivers, health care professionals, and patient organization representatives. Responses were evaluated separately for online programs, possible research questions, and understudied groups. In each category, thematic analysis was used to group responses into themes. A total of 125 participants (100 patients, 24 health care professionals, and 1 caregiver) completed the survey, and responses from patients and health care professionals were reported. For online programs, frequent recommendations included Interactive Platforms to facilitate communication between patients, as well as interventions targeting physical activity, and emotions and stress. Common responses for possible research questions were related to calcinosis, accessing health care, and quality of life. The most common suggestions for understudied groups were young patients, minority patients, and patients with calcinosis. Research topic suggestions provided in the survey will inform Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network priorities and can be considered by other researchers.

The association of sociodemographic and disease variables with hand function: a Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Impaired hand function in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a primary cause of disability and contributes diminished health-related quality of life. The objective of the present study was to evaluate sociodemographic, lifestyle, and disease-related factors independently associated with hand function in SSc. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort who completed baseline study questionnaires between March 2014 and September 2017 were included. Hand function was measured using the Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify independent correlates of impaired hand function. RESULTS: Among 1193 participants (88% female), the mean CHFS score was 13.3 (SD=16.1). Female sex (standardised regression coefficient, beta (ß)=.05), current smoking (ß=.07), higher BMI (ß=.06), diffuse SSc (ß=0.14), more severe Raynaud's scores (ß=.23), more severe finger ulcer scores (ß=.23), moderate (ß=0.19) or severe small joint contractures (ß=.20), rheumatoid arthritis (ß=0.07), and idiopathic inflammatory myositis (ß=0.06) were significantly associated with higher CHFS scores (more impaired hand function). Consumption of 1-7 alcoholic drinks per week (ß=-0.07) was associated with lower CHFS scores (less impaired hand function) compared to no drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors are associated with hand function in SSc. The presence of moderate or severe small joint contractures, the presence of digital ulcers, and severity of Raynaud's phenomenon had the largest associations. Effective interventions are needed to improve the management of hand function in patients with SSc.

Use of the nominal group technique to identify stakeholder priorities and inform survey development: an example with informal caregivers of people with scleroderma.

OBJECTIVES: The nominal group technique (NGT) allows stakeholders to directly generate items for needs assessment surveys. The objective was to demonstrate the use of NGT discussions to develop survey items on (1) challenges experienced by informal caregivers of people living with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and (2) preferences for support services. DESIGN: Three NGT groups were conducted. In each group, participants generated lists of challenges and preferred formats for support services. Participants shared items, and a master list was compiled, then reviewed by participants to remove or merge overlapping items. Once a final list of items was generated, participants independently rated challenges on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important) and support services on a scale from 1 (not at all likely to use) to 10 (very likely to use). Lists generated in the NGT discussions were subsequently reviewed and integrated into a single list by research team members. SETTING: SSc patient conferences held in the USA and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Informal caregivers who previously or currently were providing care for a family member or friend with SSc. RESULTS: A total of six men and seven women participated in the NGT discussions. Mean age was 59.8 years (SD=12.6). Participants provided care for a partner (n=8), parent (n=1), child (n=2) or friend (n=2). A list of 61 unique challenges was generated with challenges related to gaps in information, resources and support needs identified most frequently. A list of 18 unique support services was generated; most involved online or in-person delivery of emotional support and educational material about SSc. CONCLUSIONS: The NGT was an efficient method for obtaining survey items directly from SSc caregivers on important challenges and preferences for support services.