Cerebral palsy pain instruments: Recommended tools for clinical research studies by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Cerebral Palsy Common Data Elements project.

AIM: This study describes the process of updating the cerebral palsy (CP) common data elements (CDEs), specifically identifying tools that capture the impact of chronic pain on children's functioning. METHOD: Through a partnership between the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the CP CDEs were developed as data standards for clinical research in neuroscience. Chronic pain was underrepresented in the NINDS CP CDEs version 1.0. A multi-step methodology was applied by an interdisciplinary professional team. Following an adapted CP chronic pain tools' rating system, and a review of psychometric properties, clinical utility, and compliance with inclusion/exclusion criteria, a set of recommended pain tools was posted online for external public comment in May 2022. RESULTS: Fifteen chronic pain tools met inclusion criteria, representing constructs across all components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. INTERPRETATION: This paper describes the first condition-specific pain CDEs for a pediatric population. The proposed set of chronic pain tools complement and enhance the applicability of the existing pediatric CP CDEs. The novel CP CDE pain tools harmonize the assessment of chronic pain, addressing not only intensity of chronic pain, but also the functional impact of experiencing it in everyday activities.

Enhancing Enrollment in Acute Stroke Trials: Current State and Consensus Recommendations.

The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) convened a session and workshop regarding enrollment in acute stroke trials during the STAIR XII meeting on March 22, 2023. This forum brought together stroke physicians and researchers, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss the current status and opportunities for improving enrollment in acute stroke trials. The workshop identified the most relevant issues impacting enrollment in acute stroke trials and addressed potential action items for each. Focus areas included emergency consent in the United States and other countries; careful consideration of eligibility criteria to maximize enrollment and representativeness; investigator, study coordinator, and pharmacist availability outside of business hours; trial enthusiasm/equipoise; site start-up including contractual issues; site champions; incorporation of study procedures into standard workflow as much as possible; centralized enrollment at remote sites by study teams using telemedicine; global trials; and coenrollment in trials when feasible. In conclusion, enrollment of participants is the lifeblood of acute stroke trials and is the rate-limiting step for testing an exciting array of new approaches to improve patient outcomes. In particular, efforts should be undertaken to broaden the medical community's understanding and implementation of emergency consent procedures and to adopt designs and processes that are easily incorporated into standard workflow and that improve trials' efficiencies and execution. Research and actions to improve enrollment in ongoing and future trials will improve stroke outcomes more broadly than any single therapy under consideration.

NINDS Health Equity Strategic Planning Process Overview, High-Level Recommendations, and Guide.

Neurologic mortality is increasing in the United States and is occurring in an inequitable manner. There is a major need for innovative research strategies to eliminate these inequities. In 2020, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) embarked on a health equity strategic planning process, which culminated in a 3-day public workshop and research recommendations provided by a working group of its National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council (NANDSC WG) to the NINDS. This Neurology® supplement is dedicated to the NINDS health equity strategic planning process. As cochairs of the NANDS WG, we developed this summary to provide an overview of the process and a guide for navigating this special issue. Detailed recommendations from the NANDS WG are distributed throughout various articles in this supplement and supported with extensive commentary on the state of the science in health equity. Consolidated high-level recommendations from this process are presented at the end of this article.

Analysis of NINDS Health Disparities and Health Equity Research Portfolio, 2016-2020: Results and a Process for Transparency, Accuracy, and Reliability.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As detailed throughout this special issue, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) recently undertook a strategic planning effort to guide the Institute's efforts and priorities in health disparities and health equity (HD/HE) research. One input into this effort was to conduct a 5-year longitudinal, in-depth analysis of NINDS-supported HD/HE research newly funded between the years 2016 and 2020. The goals of this analysis were to describe NINDS's portfolio according to consistent, contemporary definitions and HD/HE disciplinary theory. This required the development of a novel, systematic, and validated analysis protocol. The portfolio analysis was designed to inform the recommendations of an expert working group convened by the NINDS and internal efforts to support high-priority research, training, and infrastructure efforts. METHODS: NINDS staff developed and validated this HD/HE research portfolio analysis protocol. Ultimately, HD/HE projects were characterized by their disease focus, populations of study, the health equity determinant(s) addressed, and the type and phase of research being conducted. For all interventional research, there was further assessment of the type and setting of intervention delivery as well as utilization of evidence-based community engagement and intervention sustainability approaches. RESULTS: A total of 58 new HD/HE research projects were funded from 2016 to 2020. The results of the descriptive analysis described here help provide a holistic picture of NINDS's HD/HE research portfolio, revealing strengths and gaps in the portfolio as well as opportunities ripe for future investment. DISCUSSION: NINDS developed a standardized HD/HE research categorization methodology with imbedded quality control checks that is intended to be transparent, accurate, and reproducible. The results of this HD/HE research portfolio analysis will serve as a baseline from which to assess the success of NINDS's research investments going forward.

Health Disparities Research Curricula and Training Development: Recommendations From a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Workgroup.

The national mandate to improve health equity in the United Sates is advancing. Racial and ethnic disparities in various aspects of health care have been clearly delineated, and sources of such disparities have been identified. However, implementing solution-focused interventions to eradicate such disparities, thereby achieving health equity in all US communities, has remained a daunting challenge, and no area more so, than with neurologic diseases. To assure success with bridging prominent disparities in neurologic outcomes, the pipeline of neurologic disparities researchers needs to be broadened, numbers of mid-career and senior disparities scientists sustained, partnerships with community stakeholders enhanced, incentivization of academic organizations pursued, education of all neurologic researchers conducted, and exemplary training of funding agency staff prioritized. To improve the current state of neurologic disparities, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke assembled a working group of its advisory council. (2020-2022) to examine the state of health disparity training and research. Through consensus building, we present identified gaps and recommendations to the current state of underrepresented groups in medicine in health disparity research and its training and curricula in the United States.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Health Inequities Training in Neurologic Disorders and Stroke: Analysis and Recommendations From the NINDS Advisory Council Working Group.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2020, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) leadership asked its Advisory Council to review NINDS efforts in the domains of diversity, equity, inclusion, and health inequities. Part of these efforts involved a focus on health equity training and health equity research workforce diversification activities. The objective of this article was to summarize the findings and make recommendations regarding these training activities. METHODS: A subgroup of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council Working Group for Health Disparities and Inequities in Neurological Disorders was engaged to advise NINDS leadership in the domain of diversity in health equity training. Activities included video teleconference meetings, multiple consultations with experienced leaders in the field, independent writing assignments, and an open public discussion as part of the NINDS HEADWAY workshop held on September 22-24, 2021. RESULTS: The working group recommends support for 2 distinct types of training activities: one designed for scientists from historically under-represented backgrounds and the second designed for scientists of all backgrounds performing health inequities research. Support for grant writing workshops and establishment of multi-institutional mentorship networks are recommended as potentially especially high-yield activities. The working group recommends that all NINDS-supported investigators should have sufficient diversity, equity, and inclusion training to be prepared and qualified to mentor trainees from under-represented backgrounds and mentor trainees engaged in health disparities research; there should be no "diversity tax" placed on established investigators from under-represented backgrounds to shoulder all the mentorship responsibilities. Among other recommendations, training in health disparities research should include a focus on interventional studies to alleviate inequities as well as social science and qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: There is a great deal of work to do in the field of diversity, equity, inclusion, and health inequities training, but we are optimistic that the activities outlined here, if fully implemented, will set us on the right track.

Determinants of Inequities in Neurologic Disease, Health, and Well-being: The NINDS Social Determinants of Health Framework.

A National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke working group developed the Determinants of Inequities in Neurological Disease, Health, and Well-being framework. Our goal was to guide and inspire a new generation of neurologic research that pushes the field to design and test new approaches in pursuit of health equity, population health, and social justice. We seek to expand the lens of those looking to reduce or eliminate racial, socioeconomic status, and other inequities in neurologic disease, health, and well-being to improve our collective ability to create research, programs, and policies that lead to larger, more impactful, and more sustainable change in neurologic disease patterns. In this context, we outline a framework that includes and highlights "upstream" factors in the hopes of enhancing the focus of research, programmatic, and policy efforts to reduce and eliminate inequities in neurologic health and well-being. We explicitly discuss racism and other structural factors to clarify that social determinants are not natural and unchangeable. Populations with a disproportionate burden of neurologic disease are not inherently deficient, despite what some approaches to framing health inequities imply. The framework is presented linearly, but the pathways linking the determinants of neurologic disease, health, and well-being are far more complex than those demonstrated by the arrows included in the figure. The framework highlights the different levels and scale of causation, including the structural and intermediary social determinants and their impact on neurologic health. We offer this framework to refine efforts to contextualize the interpretation of neurologic research findings and suggest new avenues for their application. We illustrate how behavioral and biological factors occur in a social and economic context, factors that have been understudied as points of intervention to reduce inequities in neurologic disease. Considering social and structural determinants of health provides promising new opportunities to achieve neurologic health equity, reach social justice, and improve our science. Extending our work in this fashion is not simply about health equity or social justice but to fundamentally improve the quality of neurologic research by enhancing underlying theory and improving study design and implementation.

Optimal Randomization Designs for Large Multicenter Clinical Trials: From the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network Funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Experience.

From 2016 to 2021, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke initiated ten multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials. Optimal subject randomization designs are demanded with 4 critical properties: (1) protection of treatment assignment randomness, (2) achievement of the desired treatment allocation ratio, (3) balancing of baseline covariates, and (4) ease of implementation. For acute stroke trials, it is necessary to minimize the time between eligibility assessment and treatment initiation. This article reviews the randomization designs for 3 trials currently enrolling in Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the SATURN (Statins in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Trial), the MOST (Multiarm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis Trial), and the FASTEST (Recombinant Factor VIIa for Hemorrhagic Stroke Trial). Randomization methods utilized in these trials include minimal sufficient balance, block urn design, big stick design, and step-forward randomization. Their advantages and limitations are reviewed and compared with traditional stratified permuted block design and minimization.

Proceedings of the First Pediatric Coma and Disorders of Consciousness Symposium by the Curing Coma Campaign, Pediatric Neurocritical Care Research Group, and NINDS: Gearing for Success in Coma Advancements for Children and Neonates.

This proceedings article presents the scope of pediatric coma and disorders of consciousness based on presentations and discussions at the First Pediatric Disorders of Consciousness Care and Research symposium held on September 14th, 2021. Herein we review the current state of pediatric coma care and research opportunities as well as shared experiences from seasoned researchers and clinicians. Salient current challenges and opportunities in pediatric and neonatal coma care and research were identified through the contributions of the presenters, who were Jose I. Suarez, MD, Nina F. Schor, MD, PhD, Beth S. Slomine, PhD Erika Molteni, PhD, and Jan-Marino Ramirez, PhD, and moderated by Varina L. Boerwinkle, MD, with overview by Mark Wainwright, MD, and subsequent audience discussion. The program, executively planned by Varina L. Boerwinkle, MD, Mark Wainwright, MD, and Michelle Elena Schober, MD, drove the identification and development of priorities for the pediatric neurocritical care community.

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research. RESULTS: A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data. DISCUSSION: We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

Standardizing, harmonizing, and protecting data collection to broaden the impact of COVID-19 research: the rapid acceleration of diagnostics-underserved populations (RADx-UP) initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) program is a consortium of community-engaged research projects with the goal of increasing access to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests in underserved populations. To accelerate clinical research, common data elements (CDEs) were selected and refined to standardize data collection and enhance cross-consortium analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RADx-UP consortium began with more than 700 CDEs from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CDE Repository, Disaster Research Response (DR2) guidelines, and the PHENotypes and eXposures (PhenX) Toolkit. Following a review of initial CDEs, we made selections and further refinements through an iterative process that included live forums, consultations, and surveys completed by the first 69 RADx-UP projects. RESULTS: Following a multistep CDE development process, we decreased the number of CDEs, modified the question types, and changed the CDE wording. Most research projects were willing to collect and share demographic NIH Tier 1 CDEs, with the top exception reason being a lack of CDE applicability to the project. The NIH RADx-UP Tier 1 CDE with the lowest frequency of collection and sharing was sexual orientation. DISCUSSION: We engaged a wide range of projects and solicited bidirectional input to create CDEs. These RADx-UP CDEs could serve as the foundation for a patient-centered informatics architecture allowing the integration of disease-specific databases to support hypothesis-driven clinical research in underserved populations. CONCLUSION: A community-engaged approach using bidirectional feedback can lead to the better development and implementation of CDEs in underserved populations during public health emergencies.

Risk of selection bias assessment in the NINDS rt-PA stroke study.

OBJECTIVES: The NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study is frequently cited in support of alteplase for acute ischemic stroke within 3 h of symptom onset. Multiple post-hoc reanalyses of this trial have been published to adjust for a baseline imbalance in stroke severity. We performed a risk of selection bias assessment and reanalyzed trial data to determine if the etiology of this baseline imbalance was more likely due to random chance or randomization errors. METHODS: A risk of selection bias assessment was conducted using signaling questions from the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted on the trial data based on the randomization process: assessment of imbalances in allocation in unique strata; adherence to a pre-specified restriction on randomization between time strata at each randomization center; assessment of differences in baseline computed tomography (CT) results in unique strata; and comparison of baseline characteristics between allocation groups within each time strata. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to compare reported treatment effects with revised treatment effects after adjustment of baseline imbalances identified in the sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Based on criteria from the ROB 2 tool, the risk of bias arising from the randomization process was high. Sensitivity analyses found 11 of 16 unique strata deviated from the expected 1:1 allocation ratio. Three randomization centers violated an apriori rule regarding a maximum difference in allocation between the time strata. Three unique strata had imbalances in baseline CT results that prognostically favored alteplase. Four imbalances in baseline characteristics were identified in the 91-180-min time stratum that all prognostically favored alteplase and were consistent with a larger alteplase treatment effect size compared to the 0-90-min time stratum. After adjustments for baseline imbalances, all reported treatment effects were reduced. Three out of seven originally positive reported results were revised to non-significant. CONCLUSION: This risk of selection bias assessment revealed a high risk of selection bias in the NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study. Sensitivity analyses conducted based on the randomization process supported this assessment. Baseline imbalances in the trial were more likely due to randomization errors than random chance. Adjusted analyses accounting for baseline imbalances revealed a reduction in reported treatment effects supporting the presence of selection bias in the trial. Treatment decisions and guideline recommendations based on the original treatment effect reported in the NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study should be done cautiously.

Common data elements to standardize genomics studies in cerebral palsy.

AIM: To define clinical common data elements (CDEs) and a mandatory minimum data set (MDS) for genomic studies of cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Candidate data elements were collated following a review of the literature and existing CDEs. An online, three-round Delphi survey was used to rate each data element as either 'core', 'recommended', 'exploratory', or 'not required'. Members of the International Cerebral Palsy Genomics Consortium (ICPGC) rated the core CDEs as either mandatory or not, to form the MDS. For both the CDEs and the MDS, a data element was considered to have reached consensus if more than 75% of respondents agreed. RESULTS: Forty-six individuals from around the world formed the Delphi panel: consumers (n=2), scientists/researchers (n=17), medical (n=19), and allied health professionals (n=8). The CDEs include 107 data elements across six categories: demographics, diagnostics, family history, antenatal and neonatal details, clinical traits, and CP-specific assessments. Of these, 10 are mandatory, 42 core, 41 recommended, and 14 are exploratory. INTERPRETATION: The ICPGC CDEs provide a foundation for the standardization of phenotype data captured in CP genomic studies and will benefit international collaborations and pooling of data, particularly in rare conditions. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: A set of 107 common data elements (CDEs) for genomics studies in cerebral palsy is provided. The CDEs include standard definitions and data values domains. The CDEs will facilitate international data sharing, collaboration, and improved clinical interpretation of findings.

OBJETIVO: Definir elementos de dados clínicos comuns (DCC) e um conjunto mínimo de dados obrigatórios (CMDO) para estudos genômicos de paralisia cerebral (PC). MÉTODO: Os elementos de dados do candidato foram coletados seguindo uma revisão da literatura e através dos DCC existentes. Uma pesquisa on-line de três rodadas Delphi foi usada para classificar cada elemento de dados como 'essencial', 'recomendado', 'exploratório' ou 'não obrigatório'. Os Membros do Consorcio Internacional de Genoma na Paralisia Cerebral (MCIGPC) classificaram os DCC do núcleo como obrigatórios ou não, para formar o CMDO. Tanto para os DCC quanto para o CMDO, um elemento de dados foi considerado como tendo chegado a um consenso se mais de 75% dos respondentes concordassem. RESULTADOS: Quarenta e seis indivíduos de todo o mundo formaram o painel Delphi: consumidores (n=2), cientistas/pesquisadores (n=17), médicos (n=19) e profissionais de saúde aliados (n=8). Os DCC incluem 107 elementos de dados em seis categorias: demografia, diagnóstico, história familiar, detalhes pré-natais e neonatais, características clínicas e avaliações específicas de PC. Destes, 10 são obrigatórios, 42 essenciais, 41 recomendados e 14 são exploratórios INTERPRETAÇÃO: Os DCC do MCIGPC fornecem uma base para a padronização de dados de fenótipo capturados em estudos genômicos de PC e beneficiarão colaborações internacionais e agrupamento de dados, particularmente em condições raras.

The NINDS 2021-2026 Strategic Plan: Partnership and cross-cutting principles.

The 2021-2026 Strategic Plan of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke began with a vision, a mission, and strategic objectives elaborated from within the institute. This plan is a collaborative product of the institute and its many stakeholders, emphasizing cross-cutting operational principles including scientific rigor, communication, workforce culture, and equity.

A focus on the neural exposome.

Many neurological disorders have complex etiologies that include noninheritable factors, collectively called the neural exposome. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke is developing a new office with goals to advance our understanding of the multiple causes of neurological illness and to enable the development of more effective interventions.

Health Equity and Actionable Disparities in Stroke: 2021 Update.

There are stark inequities in stroke incidence, prevalence, acute care, rehabilitation, risk factor control, and outcomes. To address these inequities, it is critical to engage communities in identifying priorities and designing, implementing, and disseminating interventions. This issue of Stroke features health equity themed lectures delivered during the International Stroke Conference and Health Equity and Actionable Disparities in Stroke: Understanding and Problem-Solving meetings in 2021 as well as articles covering issues of disparities and diversity in stroke. Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, received the 2021 William Feinberg Award Lecture for his lifetime achievements in seeking global and local solutions to cerebrovascular health inequities. The second annual Health Equity and Actionable Disparities in Stroke: Understanding and Problem-Solving symposium, which took place the day before the International Stroke Conference in February 2021, focused on community-engaged research for reducing inequities in stroke. Phil Gorelick, MD was awarded the Edgar J. Kenton III Award for his lifetime achievements in using community engagement strategies to recruit and retain Black participants in observational studies and clinical trials. Walter Koroshetz, MD, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke delivered the keynote lecture on stroke inequities and Richard Benson, MD, PhD, Director of the Office of Global Health and Health Disparities at National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, gave a lecture focused on National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke efforts to address inequities. Nichols et al highlighted approaches of community-based participatory research to address stroke inequities. Verma et al showcased digital health innovations to reduce inequities in stroke. Das et al showed that the proportion of underrepresented in medicine vascular neurology fellows has lowered over the past decade and authors provided a road map for enhancing the diversity in vascular neurology. Clearly, to overcome inequities, multipronged strategies are required, from broadening representation among vascular neurology faculty to partnering with communities to conduct research with meaningful impact.

A common language for Gulf War Illness (GWI) research studies: GWI common data elements.

AIMS: The Gulf War Illness programs (GWI) of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program collaborated with experts to develop Common Data Elements (CDEs) to standardize and systematically collect, analyze, and share data across the (GWI) research community. MAIN METHODS: A collective working group of GWI advocates, Veterans, clinicians, and researchers convened to provide consensus on instruments, case report forms, and guidelines for GWI research. A similar initiative, supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) was completed for a comparative illness, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and provided the foundation for this undertaking. The GWI working group divided into two sub-groups (symptoms and systems assessment). Both groups reviewed the applicability of instruments and forms recommended by the NINDS ME/CFS CDE to GWI research within specific domains and selected assessments of deployment exposures. The GWI CDE recommendations were finalized in March 2018 after soliciting public comments. KEY FINDINGS: GWI CDE recommendations are organized in 12 domains that include instruments, case report forms, and guidelines. Recommendations were categorized as core (essential), supplemental-highly recommended (essential for specified conditions, study types, or designs), supplemental (commonly collected, but not required), and exploratory (reasonable to use, but require further validation). Recommendations will continually be updated as GWI research progresses. SIGNIFICANCE: The GWI CDEs reflect the consensus recommendations of GWI research community stakeholders and will allow studies to standardize data collection, enhance data quality, and facilitate data sharing.