In-Depth Retinal Sensitivity Assessment With the MP3 Type S Microperimeter: A Methods Study.

Purpose: Retinal sensitivity is frequently listed as an end point in clinical trials, often with long working practices. The purpose of this methods study was to provide a new workflow and reduced test time for in-depth characterization of retinal sensitivity. Methods: A workflow for the MP3-S microperimeter with detailed functional characterization of the retina under photopic, mesopic, and scotopic conditions was evaluated. Grids of 32 and 28 test positions for photopic/mesopic and scotopic, respectively, were tested in 12 healthy individuals and compared with an established 68-point grid for test time, mean sensitivity (MS), and bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA). Results: The mean test time (range; ±SD) was 10.5 minutes (8.4-14.9; ±2.0) in the 68-point grid and 4.3 minutes (3.8-5.0; ±0.4) in the 32-point grid, which was significantly different (P < 0.0001). The mean of difference in test time (±SD; 95% confidence interval) was 6.1 minutes (±2.0; 4.6-7.6). MS and BCEA were significantly correlated between grids (r = 0.89 and 0.74; P = 0.0005 and 0.014, respectively). Mean test time of subjects who underwent the full protocol (n = 4) was 2.15 hours. Conclusions: The protocol suggested herein appears highly feasible with in-depth characterization of retinal function under different testing conditions and in a short test time. Translational Relevance: The protocol described herein allows for characterization of the retina under different testing conditions and in a short test time, which is relevant due to its potential for patient prognostication and follow-up in clinical settings and also given its increasing role as a clinical trial end point.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Optimal allocation strategies in platform trials with continuous endpoints.

Platform trials are randomized clinical trials that allow simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions, usually against a common control. Arms to test experimental interventions may enter and leave the platform over time. This implies that the number of experimental intervention arms in the trial may change as the trial progresses. Determining optimal allocation rates to allocate patients to the treatment and control arms in platform trials is challenging because the optimal allocation depends on the number of arms in the platform and the latter typically varies over time. In addition, the optimal allocation depends on the analysis strategy used and the optimality criteria considered. In this article, we derive optimal treatment allocation rates for platform trials with shared controls, assuming that a stratified estimation and a testing procedure based on a regression model are used to adjust for time trends. We consider both, analysis using concurrent controls only as well as analysis methods using concurrent and non-concurrent controls and assume that the total sample size is fixed. The objective function to be minimized is the maximum of the variances of the effect estimators. We show that the optimal solution depends on the entry time of the arms in the trial and, in general, does not correspond to the square root of k allocation rule used in classical multi-arm trials. We illustrate the optimal allocation and evaluate the power and type 1 error rate compared to trials using one-to-one and square root of k allocations by means of a case study.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

Use of win time for ordered composite endpoints in clinical trials.

Consider the choice of outcome for overall treatment benefit in a clinical trial which measures the first time to each of several clinical events. We describe several new variants of the win ratio that incorporate the time spent in each clinical state over the common follow-up, where clinical state means the worst clinical event that has occurred by that time. One version allows restriction so that death during follow-up is most important, while time spent in other clinical states is still accounted for. Three other variants are described; one is based on the average pairwise win time, one creates a continuous outcome for each participant based on expected win times against a reference distribution and another that uses the estimated distributions of clinical state to compare the treatment arms. Finally, a combination testing approach is described to give robust power for detecting treatment benefit across a broad range of alternatives. These new methods are designed to be closer to the overall treatment benefit/harm from a patient's perspective, compared to the ordinary win ratio. The new methods are compared to the composite event approach and the ordinary win ratio. Simulations show that when overall treatment benefit on death is substantial, the variants based on either the participants' expected win times (EWTs) against a reference distribution or estimated clinical state distributions have substantially higher power than either the pairwise comparison or composite event methods. The methods are illustrated by re-analysis of the trial heart failure: a controlled trial investigating outcomes of exercise training.

The Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Test: A Note on Some Overlooked Issues Concerning Power.

In this note, we express our viewpoint regarding power considerations, via simulation studies, in clinical study design using hierarchical composite endpoint and Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Current clinical trials on swallowing disorders (dysphagia) in Parkinson's disease (PD) apply a high variety of outcomes and different outcome measures making comparative effectiveness research challenging. Furthermore, views of patients and dysphagia clinicians when selecting trial outcomes have not been considered in the past, thus study results may have little importance to them. This study aims to develop an agreed standardised Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP), systematically measured and reported as a minimum for all clinical trials. It will also comprise guidance on outcome definitions, outcome measures and time points of measurement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The COS-DIP development will comprise five stages following established methodology: (1) a recent scoping review on all applied outcomes, their definitions, methods and time points of measurement in clinical trials in dysphagia in PD, (2) online surveys and focus groups with clinicians, patients, caregivers and family members to identify outcomes that are important to them, (3) an identified list of outcomes based on results of stage 1 and 2, (4) three round online Delphi survey with up to 200 key stakeholders to determine core outcomes and (5) two online consensus meetings with up to 40 representative key stakeholders to agree on all outcomes, definitions, methods and time points of measurement in the final COS-DIP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, on 15 May 2023 (HT27). Dissemination of the COS-DIP will be enhanced through presentations at (inter-) national conferences and through peer-reviewed, open access publications of related manuscripts. Lay and professional information sheets and infographics will be circulated through relevant patient and professional organisations and networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The COS-DIP study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1942).

An information-theoretic approach for the assessment of a continuous outcome as a surrogate for a binary true endpoint based on causal inference: Application to vaccine evaluation.

Within the causal association paradigm, a method is proposed to assess the validity of a continuous outcome as a surrogate for a binary true endpoint. The methodology is based on a previously introduced information-theoretic definition of surrogacy and has two main steps. In the first step, a new model is proposed to describe the joint distribution of the potential outcomes associated with the putative surrogate and the true endpoint of interest. The identifiability issues inherent to this type of models are handled via sensitivity analysis. In the second step, a metric of surrogacy new to this setting, the so-called individual causal association is presented. The methodology is studied in detail using theoretical considerations, some simulations, and data from a randomized clinical trial evaluating an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine. A user-friendly R package Surrogate is provided to carry out the evaluation exercise.

Surrogate endpoints: a key concept in clinical epidemiology.

Surrogate endpoints are biomarkers or intermediate outcomes that are used as substitutes for clinical outcomes of interest, often to expedite research or decision-making. In contrast, patient-important (or patient-centered) outcomes are health outcomes that are of direct relevance and importance to patients themselves; clinical trials may have measured the impact of the intervention on other endpoints related to, but different from, those of primary importance to patients. This article aims to elaborate on the use and understanding of surrogate endpoints. There should be a well-understood and scientifically grounded relationship between the surrogate (replacement) and the patient-important (target) endpoint it is intended to represent. It should be biologically plausible that changes in the surrogate will consistently and predictably reflect changes in the patient-important endpoint. The surrogate endpoint should show a threshold effect, meaning that a specific change (or state) in the surrogate with an intervention (relative to the comparator) is associated with a predictable (change in the) patient-important outcome. This helps establish a meaningful cutoff or target for the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint. While surrogate endpoints offer advantages in certain situations, it is important to remember that their use requires careful validation to ensure they reliably predict the true clinical outcome. The validity of "surrogate endpoints" should be supported by robust scientific evidence and rigorous evaluation before these can be considered and labeled as surrogate endpoints.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework.

Background: Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS. Methods: The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting. Conclusions: This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.

Increasing confidence in new approach methodologies for inhalation risk assessment with multiple end point assays using 5-day repeated exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are being widely used to reduce, refine, and replace, animal use in studying toxicology. For respiratory toxicology, this includes both in silico and in vitro alternatives to replace traditional in vivo inhalation studies. 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-DCP) is a volatile organic compound that is widely used in agriculture as a pre-planting fumigant. Short-term exposure of humans to 1,3-DCP can result in mucous membrane irritation, chest pain, headache, and dizziness. In our previous work, we exposed differentiated cells representing different parts of the respiratory epithelium to 1,3-DCP vapor, measured cytotoxicity, and did In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation (IVIVE). We have extended our previous study with 1,3-DCP vapors by conducting transcriptomics on acutely exposed nasal cultures and have implemented a separate 5-day repeated exposure with multiple endpoints to gain further molecular insight into our model. MucilAir™ Nasal cell culture models, representing the nasal epithelium, were exposed to six sub-cytotoxic concentrations of 1,3-DCP vapor at the air-liquid interface, and the nasal cultures were analyzed by different methodologies, including histology, transcriptomics, and glutathione (GSH) -depletion assays. We observed the dose-dependent effect of 1,3-DCP in terms of differential gene expression, change in cellular morphology from pseudostratified columnar epithelium to squamous epithelium, and depletion of GSH in MucilAir™ nasal cultures. The MucilAir™ nasal cultures were also exposed to 3 concentrations of 1,3-DCP using repeated exposure 4 h per day for 5 days and the histological analyses indicated changes in cellular morphology and a decrease in ciliated bodies and an increase in apoptotic bodies, with increasing concentrations of 1,3-DCP. Altogether, our results suggest that sub-cytotoxic exposures to 1,3-DCP lead to several molecular and cellular perturbations, providing significant insight into the mode-of-action (MoA) of 1,3-DCP using an innovative NAM model.

Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Assess Treatment Effects: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

A time-to-first-event composite endpoint analysis has well-known shortcomings in evaluating a treatment effect in cardiovascular clinical trials. It does not fully describe the clinical benefit of therapy because the severity of the events, events repeated over time, and clinically relevant nonsurvival outcomes cannot be considered. The generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method adds flexibility in defining the primary endpoint by including any number and type of outcomes that best capture the clinical benefit of a therapy as compared with standard of care. Clinically important outcomes, including bleeding severity, number of interventions, and quality of life, can easily be integrated in a single analysis. The treatment effect in GPC can be expressed by the net treatment benefit, the success odds, or the win ratio. This review provides guidance on the use of GPC and the choice of treatment effect measures for the analysis and reporting of cardiovascular trials.

A protein panel in cerebrospinal fluid for diagnostic and predictive assessment of Alzheimer's disease.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease with heterogenous pathophysiological changes that develop years before the onset of clinical symptoms. These preclinical changes have generated considerable interest in identifying markers for the pathophysiological mechanisms linked to AD and AD-related disorders (ADRD). On the basis of our prior work integrating cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain proteome networks, we developed a reliable and high-throughput mass spectrometry-selected reaction monitoring assay that targets 48 key proteins altered in CSF. To test the diagnostic utility of these proteins and compare them with existing AD biomarkers, CSF collected at baseline visits was assayed from 706 participants recruited from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We found that the targeted CSF panel of 48 proteins (CSF 48 panel) performed at least as well as existing AD CSF biomarkers (Aß42, tTau, and pTau181) for predicting clinical diagnosis, FDG PET, hippocampal volume, and measures of cognitive and dementia severity. In addition, for each of those outcomes, the CSF 48 panel plus the existing AD CSF biomarkers significantly improved diagnostic performance. Furthermore, the CSF 48 panel plus existing AD CSF biomarkers significantly improved predictions for changes in FDG PET, hippocampal volume, and measures of cognitive decline and dementia severity compared with either measure alone. A potential reason for these improvements is that the CSF 48 panel reflects a range of altered biology observed in AD/ADRD. In conclusion, we show that the CSF 48 panel complements existing AD CSF biomarkers to improve diagnosis and predict future cognitive decline and dementia severity.

Assessment highlights need for improvement in standards of development of core outcome sets for rare genetic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: A rare disease is classified as such if it affects less than one person in 2,000. The Core Outcome Set STandards for Development (COS-STAD) is a set of standards that represent the minimum recommendations to be considered in the process of core outcome set (COS) development. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline assessment of COS development standards for rare genetic diseases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database contains nearly 400 published COS studies according to the latest systematic review. Studies focusing on COS development for rare genetic diseases were eligible for inclusion and were assessed by two independent evaluators. RESULTS: Nine COS studies were included in the analysis. Eight different rare genetic diseases were investigated. None of the studies met all the standards for development. The number of standards met ranged from 6 to 10, and the median was 7. CONCLUSION: This study is the first study to assess COS-STAD for rare genetic diseases, and it highlights a great need for improvement. First in terms of numbers of rare diseases considered for COS developments, second in methodology, particularly regarding the consensus process, and third in reporting of the COS development studies.

Using short-term endpoints to improve interim decision making and trial duration in two-stage phase II trials with nested binary endpoints.

In oncology, phase II clinical trials are often planned as single-arm two-stage designs with a binary endpoint, for example, progression-free survival after 12 months, and the option to stop for futility after the first stage. Simon's two-stage design is a very popular approach but depending on the follow-up time required to measure the patients' outcomes the trial may have to be paused undesirably long. To shorten this forced interruption, it was proposed to use a short-term endpoint for the interim decision, such as progression-free survival after 3 months. We show that if the assumptions for the short-term endpoint are misspecified, the decision-making in the interim can be misleading, resulting in a great loss of statistical power. For the setting of a binary endpoint with nested measurements, such as progression-free survival, we propose two approaches that utilize all available short-term and long-term assessments of the endpoint to guide the interim decision. One approach is based on conditional power and the other is based on Bayesian posterior predictive probability of success. In extensive simulations, we show that both methods perform similarly, when appropriately calibrated, and can greatly improve power compared to the existing approach in settings with slow patient recruitment. Software code to implement the methods is made publicly available.

Using a Clinically Interpretable End Point Composed of Multiple Outcomes to Evaluate Totality of Treatment Effect in Comparative Oncology Studies.

This cohort study demonstrates how to use cumulative event count curves to create a clinically meaningful end point by simultaneously considering recurrence, progression, and survival times from the individual patient.

The development of a core outcome set for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds.

AIM: The aim of this project was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds. METHODS: The research project followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and consisted of two phases. The first phase prepared the background and process, while the second phase had three steps: outcome list generation via systematic review and qualitative study, Delphi consensus study, and consensus meeting. The study has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database. RESULTS: The systematic review resulted in 82 outcomes and 20 additional outcomes were obtained during the interviews. After refinement, 111 panellists from 23 countries rated a list of 51 outcomes. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set. After the consensus meeting, a patient-reported outcome was added to the core outcome set. CONCLUSION: The COS for evaluating the effectiveness of bordered foam dressings in treating complex wounds includes 7 outcomes: "ability to stay in place", "leakage", "pain", "dressing related periwound skin changes", "change in wound size over time", and "overall satisfaction". These identified outcomes are correlated with contemporary bioengineering testing and evaluation methods for dressing performance, which underpins the need for a close multidisciplinary collaboration to advance the field of wound dressings. The outcome 'overall satisfaction' reflects the impact of complex wounds and their treatment on a patient's daily life. The use of these outcomes is recommended to improve data synthesis and promote evidence-based practice. Future developments in COS development involve creating measurement instruments and relevant endpoints for these outcomes.

Neutral theory: applicability and neutrality of clinical study endpoints where a disease-specific instrument is available.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need to improve the accuracy of rare disease clinical study endpoints. Neutral theory, first described here, can be used to assess the accuracy of endpoints and improve their selection in rare disease clinical studies, reducing the risk of patient misclassification. METHODS: Neutral theory was used to assess the accuracy of rare disease clinical study endpoints and the resulting probability of false positive and false negative classifications at different disease prevalence rates. Search strings were extracted from the Orphanet Register of Rare Diseases using a proprietary algorithm to conduct a systematic review of studies published until January 2021. Overall, 11 rare diseases with one disease-specific disease severity scale (133 studies) and 12 rare diseases with more than one disease-specific disease severity scale (483 studies) were included. All indicators from clinical studies were extracted, and Neutral theory was used to calculate their match to disease-specific disease severity scales, which were used as surrogates for the disease phenotype. For those with more than one disease-severity scale, endpoints were compared with the first disease-specific disease severity scale and a composite of all later scales. A Neutrality score of > 1.50 was considered acceptable. RESULTS: Around half the clinical studies for half the rare diseases with one disease-specific disease severity score (palmoplantar psoriasis, achalasia, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis and Fournier's gangrene) met the threshold for an acceptable match to the disease phenotype, one rare disease (Guillain-Barré syndrome) had one study with an acceptable match, and four diseases (Behcet's syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome) had no studies. Clinical study endpoints in almost half the rare diseases with more than one disease-specific DSS (acromegaly, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, Fabry disease and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis) were a better match to the composite, while endpoints in the remaining rare diseases (Charcot Marie Tooth disease, Gaucher disease Type I, Huntington's disease, Sjogren's syndrome and Tourette syndrome) were a worse match. Misclassifications varied with increasing disease prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Neutral theory confirmed that disease-severity measurement needs improvement in rare disease clinical studies, especially for some diseases, and suggested that the potential for accuracy increases as the body of knowledge on a disease increases. Using Neutral theory to benchmark disease-severity measurement in rare disease clinical studies may reduce the risk of misclassification, ensuring that recruitment and treatment effect assessment optimise medicine adoption and benefit patients.

Developing a core outcome set for clinical trials in olfactory disorders: a COMET initiative.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evaluating the effectiveness of the management of Olfactory Dysfunction (OD) has been limited by a paucity of high-quality randomised and/or controlled trials. A major barrier is heterogeneity of outcomes in such studies. Core outcome sets (COS) - standardized sets of outcomes that should be measured/reported as determined by consensus-would help overcome this problem and facilitate future meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews (SRs). We set out to develop a COS for interventions for patients with OD. METHODS: A long-list of potential outcomes was identified by a steering group utilising a literature review, thematic analysis of a wide range of stakeholders' views and systematic analysis of currently available Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). A subsequent e-Delphi process allowed patients and healthcare practitioners to individually rate the outcomes in terms of importance on a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of the iterative eDelphi process, the initial outcomes were distilled down to a final COS including subjective questions (visual analogue scores, quantitative and qualitative), quality of life measures, psychophysical testing of smell, baseline psychophysical testing of taste, and presence of side effects along with the investigational medicine/device and patient's symptom log. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of these core outcomes in future trials will increase the value of research on clinical interventions for OD. We include recommendations regarding the outcomes that should be measured, although future work will be required to further develop and revalidate existing outcome measures.