Psychometric Properties and Domains Covered by Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Trials Assessing Interventions for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials assessing interventions for chronic pain, describe their psychometric properties and the clinical domains they cover. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified phase 3 or 4 interventional trials on adult participants (age >18) registered in clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 and which provided "chronic pain" as a keyword condition. We excluded diagnostic studies and phase 1 or 2 trials. In each trial, one reviewer extracted all outcomes registered and identified those captured using PROMs. For each PROM used in more than 1% of identified trials, two reviewers assessed whether it covered the six important clinical domains from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT): pain, emotional functioning, physical functioning, Participant ratings of global improvement of global improvement, symptoms and adverse events, and participant disposition (e.g., adherence to medication). Second, reviewers searched PubMed for both the initial publication and latest review reporting the psychometric properties of each PROM and their content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing, criterion validity and responsiveness using published criteria from the literature. RESULTS: In total, 596 trials assessing 4843 outcomes were included in the study (median sample size 60, interquartile range 40 to 100). Trials evaluated behavioral (22%), device-based (21%) and drug-based (10%) interventions. Of 495 unique PROMs, 55 were used in more than 1% trials (16 were generic pain measures; 8 were pain measures for specific diseases; 30 were measures of other symptoms or consequences of pain). About 50% PROMs had more than 50% of psychometric properties rated as sufficient. Scales often focused on a single clinical domain. Only 25% trials measured at least three clinical domains from IMMPACT. CONCLUSION: Only half of PROMs used in trials for chronic pain had sufficient psychometric properties for more than 50% of criteria assessed. Few PROMs assess more than one important clinical domain. Only 25% of trials measure more than 3/6 clinical domains considered important by IMMPACT.

Risk factors for thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia in a general ward and requiring treatment with oxygen.

PURPOSE: To assess risk factors for arterial and venous thromboses (AVT) in patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen therapy. METHODS: Our study was based on three randomized studies conducted as part of the CORIMUNO-19 platform in France between 27 March and 26 April 2020. Adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring at least 3 l/min of oxygen but not ventilation were randomized to receive standard care alone or standard care plus biologics. Patients were followed up for 3 months, and adverse events were documented. Risk factor for AVT and bleeding was identified by analyzing clinical, laboratory, and treatment data at baseline among the 315 patients with complete datasets. A Fine and Gray model was used to take account of competing events. RESULTS: During the 3-month follow-up period, 39 AVT occurred in 38 (10%) of the 388 patients: 26 deep vein thromboses and/or pulmonary embolisms in 25 (6%) patients, and 14 arterial thrombotic events in 13 (3%) patients. A history of diabetes at inclusion [sHR (95% CI) = 2.65 (1.19-5.91), P = .017] and the C-reactive protein (CRP) level (sHR = 1 [1-1.01], P = .049) were significantly associated with an elevated risk of thrombosis. Obesity was not associated with a higher risk of thrombosis (sHR = 1.01 [0.4-2.57], P = .98). The CRP level and diabetes were not risk factors for hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the epidemic, diabetes (but not obesity) and a high CRP level were risk factors for AVT. The use of higher doses of anticoagulant in these high-risk patients could be considered.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF. METHODS: The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting. RESULTS: (i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members. CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain. CONCLUSION: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

More rapid blood interferon α2 decline in fatal versus surviving COVID-19 patients.

Background: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia is highly variable. Few biological predictive factors have been identified. Genetic and immunological studies suggest that type 1 interferons (IFN) are essential to control SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To study the link between change in blood IFN-α2 level and plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load over time and subsequent death in patients with severe and critical COVID-19. Methods: One hundred and forty patients from the CORIMUNO-19 cohort hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia, all requiring oxygen or ventilation, were prospectively studied. Blood IFN-α2 was evaluated using the Single Molecule Array technology. Anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs were determined with a reporter luciferase activity. Plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load was measured using droplet digital PCR targeting the Nucleocapsid gene of the SARS-CoV-2 positive-strand RNA genome. Results: Although the percentage of plasmacytoid dendritic cells was low, the blood IFN-α2 level was higher in patients than in healthy controls and was correlated to SARS-CoV-2 plasma viral load at entry. Neutralizing anti-IFN-α2 auto-antibodies were detected in 5% of patients, associated with a lower baseline level of blood IFN-α2. A longitudinal analysis found that a more rapid decline of blood IFN-α2 was observed in fatal versus surviving patients: mortality HR=3.15 (95% CI 1.14-8.66) in rapid versus slow decliners. Likewise, a high level of plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA was associated with death risk in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusion: These findings could suggest an interest in evaluating type 1 IFN treatment in patients with severe COVID-19 and type 1 IFN decline, eventually combined with anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifiers NCT04324073, NCT04331808, NCT04341584.

Use of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for covid-19 with or without underlying immunodeficiency: open label, randomised clinical trial.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for moderate covid-19 disease with or without underlying immunodeficiency (CORIPLASM trial). Design: Open label, randomised clinical trial. Setting: CORIMUNO-19 cohort (publicly supported platform of open label, randomised controlled trials of immune modulatory drugs in patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe covid-19 disease) based on 19 university and general hospitals across France, from 16 April 2020 to 21 April 2021. Participants: 120 adults (n=60 in the covid-19 convalescent plasma group, n=60 in the usual care group) admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV2 test result, duration of symptoms <9 days, and World Health Organization score of 4 or 5. 49 patients (n=22, n=27) had underlying immunosuppression. Interventions: Open label randomisation to usual care or four units (200-220 mL/unit, 2 units/day over two consecutive days) of covid-19 convalescent plasma with a seroneutralisation titre >40. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were proportion of patients with a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 on the 10 point scale on day 4 (higher values indicate a worse outcome), and survival without assisted ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Secondary outcomes were changes in WHO Clinical Progression Scale scores, overall survival, time to discharge, and time to end of dependence on oxygen supply. Predefined subgroups analyses included immunosuppression status, duration of symptoms before randomisation, and use of steroids. Results: 120 patients were recruited and assigned to covid-19 convalescent plasma (n=60) or usual care (n=60), including 22 (covid-19 convalescent plasma) and 27 (usual care) patients who were immunocompromised. 13 (22%) patients who received convalescent plasma had a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 at day 4 versus eight (13%) patients who received usual care (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% credible interval 0.71 to 5.24). By day 14, 19 (31.6%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 20 (33.3%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment, or had died. For cumulative incidence of death, three (5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and eight (13%) in the usual care group died by day 14 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.53), and seven (12%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 12 (20%) in the usual care group by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 0.20 to 1.32). In a subgroup analysis performed in patients who were immunocompromised, transfusion of covid-19 convalescent plasma was associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.10). Conclusions: In this study, covid-19 convalescent plasma did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate covid-19 disease. The efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients who are immunocompromised should be investigated further. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345991.

Can efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of rituximab in RA be extrapolated? Insights from 1984 patients from the AIR-PR Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the efficacy and safety data from drug-registration trials can be extrapolated to real-life RA patients receiving RTX. METHODS: The AIR-PR registry is a French multicentre, prospective cohort of RA patients treated with RTX in a real-life setting. We compared treatment responses at 12 months and serious AEs between eligible and non-eligible patients, by retrieving the eligibility criteria of the three rituximab-registration trials. We determined critical eligibility criteria and modelled the benefit-risk ratio according to the number of fulfilled critical eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Among 1984 RA patients, only 9-12% fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Non-eligible patients had less EULAR response at 12 months (40.3% vs 46.9%, p= 0.044). Critical inclusion criteria included SJC ≥ 4, TJC ≥ 4, CRP ≥ 15 mg/l, and RF positivity. Critical exclusion criteria were age >80 years, RA-associated systemic diseases, ACR functional class IV, other DMARD than methotrexate, and prednisone > 10 mg/day. Only 20.8% fulfilled those critical eligibility criteria. During the first year, serious AEs occurred for 182 (9.2%) patients, (70.3% serious infections) and patients with ≥1 critical exclusion criterion were at higher risk (HR 3.03; 95%CI 2.25-4.06; for ≥ 3 criteria vs 0). The incremental risk-benefit ratio decreased with the number of unmet critical inclusion criteria and of fulfilled exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Few real-life RA patients were eligible for the drug-registration trials. Non-eligible patients had lower chance of response, and higher risk of serious AEs. Efficacy and safety data obtained from those trials may not be generalizable to RA patients receiving RTX in real-world clinical practice.

Assessment of US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Digital Medical Devices for Just-in-Time Interventions: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Just-in-time interventions (JITIs) are a type of digital therapeutic intervention that combines remote monitoring tools and algorithms to personalize the delivery of specific interventions at the right time. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory approval documents are often the only available source of information on the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions based on these devices. Objective: To systematically review the publicly available information from the FDA on all recently approved medical devices used in JITIs to (1) assess how they operate to deliver JITIs and (2) appraise the evidence supporting their performance and clinical effectiveness. Evidence Review: Two reviewers systematically searched the Premarket Notifications (510(k)), Premarket Approvals, De Novo, and Humanitarian Device Exemption databases from January 2019 to December 2021 for all entries associated with devices that monitored patients' data over time to personalize the delivery of interventions to treat, prevent, or mitigate health conditions or events. They assessed whether the product summaries (1) enabled an understanding of how the device operated to deliver a JITI (eg, the nature, type, and frequency of the monitoring, the nature of the decision algorithm, and the nature and intended receiver of the intervention); (2) informed about the performance and effectiveness of the JITI; and (3) included information on data security and ownership. Findings: In total, 38 devices were included in this review. These were mainly intended for cardiac conditions (12 [31.6%]), diabetes (10 [26.3%]), and neurological diseases (4 [10.5%]). Monitoring devices ranged from wearable (18 of 28 [64.4%]; eg, smartwatches) to implanted sensors (6 of 28 [21.4%]; eg, inserted electrocardiographic sensors). Only 10 of 38 product summaries (26.3%) allowed a full understanding of how the device operated to deliver a JITI. Similarly, only 12 of 28 (42.9%), 12 of 36 (33.3%), and 5 of 38 (13.2%) reported the assessment of the performance of the monitoring device, assessment of the decision algorithm, and results of clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of the JITI, respectively. Finally, 14 of 36 product summaries (38.9%) included some information on data security, but none included information on data ownership. Conclusion and Relevance: The results of this systematic review suggest that the information publicly available in the FDA databases on the performance and effectiveness of digital medical devices used in JITIs is heterogeneous.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials.

Importance: Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal. Objective: To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group. Interventions: The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles. Results: In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

A methodological framework allows the identification of personomic markers to consider when designing personalized interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a methodological framework to identify and prioritize personomic markers (e.g., psychosocial situation, beliefs…) to consider for personalizing interventions and to test in smoking cessation interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: (1) We identified potential personomic markers considered in protocols of personalized interventions, in reviews of predictors of smoking cessation, and in interviews with general practitioners. (2) Physicians, and patient smokers or former smokers selected the markers they considered most relevant during online paired comparison experiments. Data were analyzed with Bradley Terry Luce models. RESULTS: Thirty-six personomic markers were identified from research evidence. They were evaluated by 795 physicians (median age: 34, IQR [30-38]; 95% general practitioners) and 793 patients (median age: 54, IQR [42-64], 71.4% former smokers) during 11,963 paired comparisons. Physicians identified patients' motivation for quitting (e.g., Prochaska stages), patients' preferences, and patients' fears and beliefs (e.g., concerns about weight gain) as the most relevant elements to personalize smoking cessation. Patients considered their motivation for quitting, smoking behavior (e.g., smoking at home/at work), and tobacco dependence (e.g., Fagerström Test) as the most relevant elements to consider. CONCLUSION: We provide a methodological framework to prioritize which personomic markers should be considered when developing smoking cessation interventions.

cNF-Skindex in Adults Living with Neurofibromatosis 1: Severity Strata in France and Validation in United States Adults.

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) contribute to the impairment of QOL in individuals with neurofibromatosis 1. The cNF-Skindex, validated in a French population, specifically assesses the cNF-related QOL. In this study, we first defined severity strata using an anchoring approach on the basis of patient's burden. In total, 209 patients answered the anchor question and the cNF-Skindex. We tested the agreement among the three strata, generated by all potential couples of cut-off values of the cNF-Skindex and the three strata defined in the anchor question. The cut-off values 12 and 49 provided the highest Kappa value (κ = 0.685, 95% confidence interval = 0.604-0.765). Second, we validated the score and the strata in a United States population using the answers provided by 220 French and 148 United States adults. In the multivariable linear regression analysis, the country of origin was not a factor associated with the score (P = 0.297). The number of cNF along the different severity strata was similar between the French and the United States populations. In conclusion, stratification constitutes a powerful tool to better interpret the cNF-Skindex in daily practice and in clinical trials. This study validates its use in two populations that together constitute a large cohort of patients willing to participate in clinical research.

Trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, up to two years after symptoms onset.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, up to 2 years after symptom onset. METHODS: The ComPaRe long COVID e-cohort is a prospective cohort of patients with symptoms lasting at least 2 months after SARS-CoV2 infection. We used trajectory modeling to identify different trajectories in the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, based on symptoms collected every 60 days using the long COVID Symptom Tool. RESULTS: A total of 2197 patients were enrolled in the cohort between December 2020 and July 2022 when the Omicron variant was not dominant. Three trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition were identified: "high persistent symptoms" (4%), "rapidly decreasing symptoms" (5%), and "slowly decreasing symptoms" (91%). Participants with highly persistent symptoms were older and more likely to report a history of systemic diseases. They often reported tachycardia, bradycardia, palpitations, and arrhythmia. Participants with rapidly decreasing symptoms were younger and more likely to report a confirmed infection. They often reported diarrhea and back pain. Participants with slowly decreasing symptoms were more likely to have a history of functional diseases. CONCLUSION: Most patients with post-COVID-19 condition improve slowly over time, while 5% have rapid improvement in the 2 years after symptom onset and 4% have a persistent condition.

Sharing of Individual Patient-Level Data by Trialists of Randomized Clinical Trials of Pharmacological Treatments for COVID-19.

This study describes access to individual patient-level data from randomized clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine whether the intent to share what was reported in the registry, publication, or preprint was consistent with actual data access.

Efficacy of first dose of covid-19 vaccine versus no vaccination on symptoms of patients with long covid: target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of covid-19 vaccination on the severity of symptoms in patients with long covid. Design: Target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort. Data source: ComPaRe long covid cohort, a nationwide e-cohort (ie, a cohort where recruitment and follow-up are performed online) of patients with long covid, in France. Methods: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in the ComPaRe cohort before 1 May 2021 were included in the study if they reported a confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms persistent for >3 weeks after onset, and at least one symptom attributable to long covid at baseline. Patients who received a first covid-19 vaccine injection were matched with an unvaccinated control group in a 1:1 ratio according to their propensity scores. Number of long covid symptoms, rate of complete remission of long covid, and proportion of patients reporting an unacceptable symptom state at 120 days were recorded. Results: 910 patients were included in the analyses (455 in the vaccinated group and 455 in the control group). By 120 days, vaccination had reduced the number of long covid symptoms (mean 13.0 (standard deviation 9.4) in the vaccinated group v 14.8 (9.8) in the control group; mean difference -1.8, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.5) and doubled the rate of patients in remission (16.6% v 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 3.14). Vaccination reduced the effect of long covid on patients' lives (mean score on the impact tool 24.3 (standard deviation 16.7) v 27.6 (16.7); mean difference -3.3, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to -1.0) and the proportion of patients with an unacceptable symptom state (38.9% v 46.4%, risk difference -7.4%, 95% confidence interval -14.5% to -0.3%). In the vaccinated group, two (0.4%) patients reported serious adverse events requiring admission to hospital. Conclusion: In this study, covid-19 vaccination reduced the severity of symptoms and the effect of long covid on patients' social, professional, and family lives at 120 days in those with persistent symptoms of infection.

Patients' Perspectives on How to Improve Endometriosis Care: A Large Qualitative Study Within the ComPaRe-Endometriosis e-Cohort.

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological condition that affects about 10% of women of reproductive age. Despite its prevalence, diagnosis is often delayed, misdiagnosis is common, and treatment options are poor. This study aimed at capturing ideas to improve endometriosis care from the patients' perspectives. Materials and Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 1,000 adult patients in ComPaRe-Endometriosis (a French prospective e-cohort focused on endometriosis) who answered to the open-ended question: "If you had a magic wand, what would you change about your health care?". The free-text responses were analyzed by qualitative thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Results: Patients had a mean age of 34.1 years (standard deviation = 8.1); 56% and 42% had stage IV disease or deep endometriosis, respectively. They elicited 2,487 ideas to improve the management of endometriosis, which were categorized into 61 areas of improvement, further grouped into 14 themes. The top five areas of improvement were mentioned by >10% of the patients and were to (1) train caregivers to develop their knowledge on the disease, (2) provide better management of daily pain and pain attacks, (3) take patient-reported symptoms seriously, (4) standardize diagnostic processes to improve early detection, and (5) have caregivers listen more to the patients. Conclusions: We identified 61 areas for improvement in endometriosis care. These results reflect patients' expectations in terms of management of their disease and will be useful to design a better global care for endometriosis from the patients' perspectives.

A systematic scoping review of just-in-time, adaptive interventions finds limited automation and incomplete reporting.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the degree of automation in just-in-time, adaptive interventions (JITAIs) assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any medical specialty, and to assess the completeness of intervention reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic scoping review-we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, from 1 January 2019 to 2 March 2021, for reports of RCTs assessing JITAIs. We assessed whether study reports included the minimum information required to replicate the interventions based on JITAI frameworks. We described JITAIs according to their automation level using an established framework (partially, highly, or fully automated), and care workload distribution (requiring work from patients, health care professionals [HCPs], both, or neither). RESULTS: We included 88 JITAIs (62%, n = 55 supported chronic illness management and 12%, n = 11 supported health behavior change). Overall, 77% (n = 68) of JITAIs were missing some information required to replicate the intervention (e.g., n = 38, 43% inadequately reported the algorithm used to select intervention components). Only fifteen (17%) JITAIs were fully automated and did not require additional work from HCPs nor patients. Of the remaining JITAIs, 36% required work from both patients and HCPs, and 47% required work from either patients or HCPs. CONCLUSION: Most JITAIs are not fully automated and require work from the HCPs and patients.

Considering multiple outcomes with different weights informed the hierarchy of interventions in network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Ranking metrics in network meta-analysis (NMA) are computed separately for each outcome. Our aim is to 1) present graphical ways to group competing interventions considering multiple outcomes and 2) use conjoint analysis for placing weights on the various outcomes based on the stakeholders' preferences. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used multidimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical tree clustering to visualize the extent of similarity of interventions in terms of the relative effects they produce through a random effect NMA. We reanalyzed a published network of 212 psychosis trials taking three outcomes into account as follows: reduction in symptoms of schizophrenia, all-cause treatment discontinuation, and weight gain. RESULTS: Conjoint analysis provides a mathematical method to transform judgements into weights that can be subsequently used to visually represent interventions on a two-dimensional plane or through a dendrogram. These plots provide insightful information about the clustering of interventions. CONCLUSION: Grouping interventions can help decision makers not only to identify the optimal ones in terms of benefit-risk balance but also choose one from the best cluster based on other grounds, such as cost, implementation etc. Placing weights on outcomes allows considering patient profile or preferences.