Randomized Trial of Thymectomy in Myasthenia Gravis.

BACKGROUND: Thymectomy has been a mainstay in the treatment of myasthenia gravis, but there is no conclusive evidence of its benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing thymectomy plus prednisone with prednisone alone. METHODS: We compared extended transsternal thymectomy plus alternate-day prednisone with alternate-day prednisone alone. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who had generalized nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis with a disease duration of less than 5 years were included if they had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America clinical class II to IV disease (on a scale from I to V, with higher classes indicating more severe disease) and elevated circulating concentrations of acetylcholine-receptor antibody. The primary outcomes were the time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (on a scale from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) over a 3-year period, as assessed by means of blinded rating, and the time-weighted average required dose of prednisone over a 3-year period. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent randomization between 2006 and 2012 at 36 sites. Patients who underwent thymectomy had a lower time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score over a 3-year period than those who received prednisone alone (6.15 vs. 8.99, P<0.001); patients in the thymectomy group also had a lower average requirement for alternate-day prednisone (44 mg vs. 60 mg, P<0.001). Fewer patients in the thymectomy group than in the prednisone-only group required immunosuppression with azathioprine (17% vs. 48%, P<0.001) or were hospitalized for exacerbations (9% vs. 37%, P<0.001). The number of patients with treatment-associated complications did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.73), but patients in the thymectomy group had fewer treatment-associated symptoms related to immunosuppressive medications (P<0.001) and lower distress levels related to symptoms (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Thymectomy improved clinical outcomes over a 3-year period in patients with nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; MGTX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00294658.).

Common data elements for clinical research in mitochondrial disease: a National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke project.

OBJECTIVES: The common data elements (CDE) project was developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) to provide clinical researchers with tools to improve data quality and allow for harmonization of data collected in different research studies. CDEs have been created for several neurological diseases; the aim of this project was to develop CDEs specifically curated for mitochondrial disease (Mito) to enhance clinical research. METHODS: Nine working groups (WGs), composed of international mitochondrial disease experts, provided recommendations for Mito clinical research. They initially reviewed existing NINDS CDEs and instruments, and developed new data elements or instruments when needed. Recommendations were organized, internally reviewed by the Mito WGs, and posted online for external public comment for a period of eight weeks. The final version was again reviewed by all WGs and the NINDS CDE team prior to posting for public use. RESULTS: The NINDS Mito CDEs and supporting documents are publicly available on the NINDS CDE website ( https://commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/ ), organized into domain categories such as Participant/Subject Characteristics, Assessments, and Examinations. CONCLUSION: We developed a comprehensive set of CDE recommendations, data definitions, case report forms (CRFs), and guidelines for use in Mito clinical research. The widespread use of CDEs is intended to enhance Mito clinical research endeavors, including natural history studies, clinical trial design, and data sharing. Ongoing international collaboration will facilitate regular review, updates and online publication of Mito CDEs, and support improved consistency of data collection and reporting.

Neurocognitive clinical outcome assessments for inborn errors of metabolism and other rare conditions.

Well-defined and reliable clinical outcome assessments are essential for determining whether a drug provides clinically meaningful treatment benefit for patients. In 2015, FDA convened a workshop, "Assessing Neurocognitive Outcomes in Inborn Errors of Metabolism." Topics covered included special challenges of clinical studies of inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) and other rare diseases; complexities of identifying treatment effects in the context of the dynamic processes of child development and disease progression; and the importance of natural history studies. Clinicians, parents/caregivers, and participants from industry, academia, and government discussed factors to consider when developing measures to assess treatment outcomes, as well as tools and methods that may contribute to standardizing measures. Many issues examined are relevant to the broader field of rare diseases in addition to specifics of IEMs.

Nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders: Developing an evidence base.

In December 2014, a workshop entitled "Nutritional Interventions in Primary Mitochondrial Disorders: Developing an Evidence Base" was convened at the NIH with the goals of exploring the use of nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders (PMD) and identifying knowledge gaps regarding their safety and efficacy; identifying research opportunities; and forging collaborations among researchers, clinicians, patient advocacy groups, and federal partners. Sponsors included the NIH, the Wellcome Trust, and the United Mitochondrial Diseases Foundation. Dietary supplements have historically been used in the management of PMD due to their potential benefits and perceived low risk, even though little evidence exists regarding their effectiveness. PMD are rare and clinically, phenotypically, and genetically heterogeneous. Thus patient recruitment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has proven to be challenging. Only a few RCTs examining dietary supplements, singly or in combination with other vitamins and cofactors, are reported in the literature. Regulatory issues pertaining to the use of dietary supplements as treatment modalities further complicate the research and patient access landscape. As a preface to exploring a research agenda, the workshop included presentations and discussions on what PMD are; how nutritional interventions are used in PMD; challenges and barriers to their use; new technologies and approaches to diagnosis and treatment; research opportunities and resources; and perspectives from patient advocacy, industry, and professional organizations. Seven key areas were identified during the workshop. These areas were: 1) defining the disease, 2) clinical trial design, 3) biomarker selection, 4) mechanistic approaches, 5) challenges in using dietary supplements, 6) standards of clinical care, and 7) collaboration issues. Short- and long-term goals within each of these areas were identified. An example of an overarching goal is the enrollment of all individuals with PMD in a natural history study and a patient registry to enhance research capability. The workshop demonstrates an effective model for fostering and enhancing collaborations among NIH and basic research, clinical, patient, pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory stakeholders in the mitochondrial disease community to address research challenges on the use of dietary supplements in PMD.

Improving the value of clinical research through the use of Common Data Elements.

The use of Common Data Elements can facilitate cross-study comparisons, data aggregation, and meta-analyses; simplify training and operations; improve overall efficiency; promote interoperability between different systems; and improve the quality of data collection. A Common Data Element is a combination of a precisely defined question (variable) paired with a specified set of responses to the question that is common to multiple datasets or used across different studies. Common Data Elements, especially when they conform to accepted standards, are identified by research communities from variable sets currently in use or are newly developed to address a designated data need. There are no formal international specifications governing the construction or use of Common Data Elements. Consequently, Common Data Elements tend to be made available by research communities on an empiric basis. Some limitations of Common Data Elements are that there may still be differences across studies in the interpretation and implementation of the Common Data Elements, variable validity in different populations, and inhibition by some existing research practices and the use of legacy data systems. Current National Institutes of Health efforts to support Common Data Element use are linked to the strengthening of National Institutes of Health Data Sharing policies and the investments in data repositories. Initiatives include cross-domain and domain-specific resources, construction of a Common Data Element Portal, and establishment of trans-National Institutes of Health working groups to address technical and implementation topics. The National Institutes of Health is seeking to lower the barriers to Common Data Element use through greater awareness and encourage the culture change necessary for their uptake and use. As National Institutes of Health, other agencies, professional societies, patient registries, and advocacy groups continue efforts to develop and promote the responsible use of Common Data Elements, particularly if linked to accepted data standards and terminologies, continued engagement with and feedback from the research community will remain important.

Common data elements for clinical research in Friedreich's ataxia.

To reduce study start-up time, increase data sharing, and assist investigators conducting clinical studies, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke embarked on an initiative to create common data elements for neuroscience clinical research. The Common Data Element Team developed general common data elements, which are commonly collected in clinical studies regardless of therapeutic area, such as demographics. In the present project, we applied such approaches to data collection in Friedreich's ataxia (FRDA), a neurological disorder that involves multiple organ systems. To develop FRDA common data elements, FRDA experts formed a working group and subgroups to define elements in the following: ataxia and performance measures; biomarkers; cardiac and other clinical outcomes; and demographics, laboratory tests, and medical history. The basic development process included identification of international experts in FRDA clinical research, meeting by teleconference to develop a draft of standardized common data elements recommendations, vetting of recommendations across the subgroups, and dissemination of recommendations to the research community for public comment. The full recommendations were published online in September 2011 at http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/FA.aspx. The subgroups' recommendations are classified as core, supplemental, or exploratory. Template case report forms were created for many of the core tests. The present set of data elements should ideally lead to decreased initiation time for clinical research studies and greater ability to compare and analyze data across studies. Their incorporation into new, ongoing studies will be assessed in an ongoing fashion to define their utility in FRDA.

Standardizing the structure of stroke clinical and epidemiologic research data: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Common Data Element (CDE) project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke initiated development of stroke-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs) as part of a project to develop data standards for funded clinical research in all fields of neuroscience. Standardizing data elements in translational, clinical, and population research in cerebrovascular disease could decrease study start-up time, facilitate data sharing, and promote well-informed clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A working group of diverse experts in cerebrovascular clinical trials, epidemiology, and biostatistics met regularly to develop a set of stroke CDEs, selecting among, refining, and adding to existing, field-tested data elements from national registries and funded trials and studies. Candidate elements were revised on the basis of comments from leading national and international neurovascular research organizations and the public. RESULTS: The first iteration of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) stroke-specific CDEs comprises 980 data elements spanning 9 content areas: (1) biospecimens and biomarkers; (2) hospital course and acute therapies; (3) imaging; (4) laboratory tests and vital signs; (5) long-term therapies; (6) medical history and prior health status; (7) outcomes and end points; (8) stroke presentation; and (9) stroke types and subtypes. A CDE website provides uniform names and structures for each element, a data dictionary, and template case report forms, using the CDEs. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke-specific CDEs are now available as standardized, scientifically vetted, variable structures to facilitate data collection and data sharing in cerebrovascular patient-oriented research. The CDEs are an evolving resource that will be iteratively improved based on investigator use, new technologies, and emerging concepts and research findings.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Element Project - approach and methods.

BACKGROUND: In neuroscience clinical research studies, much time and effort are devoted to deciding what data to collect and developing data collection forms and data management systems to capture the data. Many investigators receiving funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are required to share their data once their studies are complete, but the multitude of data definitions and formats make it extremely difficult to aggregate data or perform meta-analyses across studies. PURPOSE: In an effort to assist investigators and accelerate data sharing in neuroscience clinical research, the NINDS has embarked upon the Common Data Element (CDE) Project. The data standards developed through the NINDS CDE Project enable clinical investigators to systematically collect data and should facilitate study start-up and data aggregation across the research community. METHODS: The NINDS CDE Team has taken a systematic, iterative approach to develop the critical core and the disease-specific CDEs. The CDE development process provides a mechanism for community involvement and buy-in, offers a structure for decision making, and includes a technical support team. RESULTS: Upon conclusion of the development process, the CDEs and accompanying tools are available on the Project Web site - http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/. The Web site currently includes the critical core (aka general) CDEs that are applicable to all clinical research studies regardless of therapeutic area as well as several disease-specific CDEs. Additional disease-specific CDEs will be added to the Web site once they are developed and vetted over the next 12 months. LIMITATIONS: The CDEs will continue to evolve and will improve only if clinical researchers use and offer feedback about their experience with them. Thus, the NINDS program staff strongly encourages its clinical research grantees to use the CDEs and is expanding its efforts to educate the neuroscience research community about the CDEs and to train research teams to incorporate them into their studies. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1.0 of a set of CDEs has been published, but publication is not the end of the development process. All CDEs will be evaluated and revised at least annually to ensure that they reflect current clinical research practices in neuroscience.

Common data elements in epilepsy research: development and implementation of the NINDS epilepsy CDE project.

The Common Data Element (CDE) Project was initiated in 2006 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) to develop standards for performing funded neuroscience-related clinical research. CDEs are intended to standardize aspects of data collection; decrease study start-up time; and provide more complete, comprehensive, and equivalent data across studies within a particular disease area. Therefore, CDEs will simplify data sharing and data aggregation across NINDS-funded clinical research, and where appropriate, facilitate the development of evidenced-based guidelines and recommendations. Epilepsy-specific CDEs were established in nine content areas: (1) Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) and Other Antiepileptic Therapies (AETs), (2) Comorbidities, (3) Electrophysiology, (4) Imaging, (5) Neurological Exam, (6) Neuropsychology, (7) Quality of Life, (8) Seizures and Syndromes, and (9) Surgery and Pathology. CDEs were developed as a dynamic resource that will accommodate recommendations based on investigator use, new technologies, and research findings documenting emerging critical disease characteristics. The epilepsy-specific CDE initiative can be viewed as part of the larger international movement toward "harmonization" of clinical disease characterization and outcome assessment designed to promote communication and research efforts in epilepsy. It will also provide valuable guidance for CDE improvement during further development, refinement, and implementation. This article describes the NINDS CDE Initiative, the process used in developing Epilepsy CDEs, and the benefits of CDEs for the clinical investigator and NINDS.

Development of Common Data Elements for Use in Chiari Malformation Type I Clinical Research: An NIH/NINDS Project.

The management of Chiari I malformation (CMI) is controversial because treatment methods vary and treatment decisions rest on incomplete understanding of its complex symptom patterns, etiologies, and natural history. Validity of studies that attempt to compare treatment of CMI has been limited because of variable terminology and methods used to describe study subjects. The goal of this project was to standardize terminology and methods by developing a comprehensive set of Common Data Elements (CDEs), data definitions, case report forms (CRFs), and outcome measure recommendations for use in CMI clinical research, as part of the CDE project at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the US National Institutes of Health. A working group, comprising over 30 experts, developed and identified CDEs, template CRFs, data dictionaries, and guidelines to aid investigators starting and conducting CMI clinical research studies. The recommendations were compiled, internally reviewed, and posted online for external public comment. In October 2016, version 1.0 of the CMI CDE recommendations became available on the NINDS CDE website. The recommendations span these domains: Core Demographics/Epidemiology; Presentation/Symptoms; Co-Morbidities/Genetics; Imaging; Treatment; and Outcome. Widespread use of CDEs could facilitate CMI clinical research trial design, data sharing, retrospective analyses, and consistent data sharing between CMI investigators around the world. Updating of CDEs will be necessary to keep them relevant and applicable to evolving research goals for understanding CMI and its treatment.

NINDS Common Data Elements for Congenital Muscular Dystrophy Clinical Research: A National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke Project.

BACKGROUND: A Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (CMD) Working Group (WG) consisting of international experts reviewed common data elements (CDEs) previously developed for other neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) and made recommendations for all types of studies on CMD. OBJECTIVES: To develop a comprehensive set of CDEs, data definitions, case report forms and guidelines for use in CMD clinical research to facilitate interoperability of data collection, as part of the CDE project at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). METHODS: One working group composed of ten experts reviewed existing NINDS CDEs and outcome measures, evaluated the need for new elements, and provided recommendations for CMD clinical research. The recommendations were compiled, internally reviewed by the CMD working group, and posted online for external public comment. The CMD working group and the NIH CDE team reviewed the final version before release. RESULTS: The NINDS CMD CDEs and supporting documents are publicly available on the NINDS CDE website (https://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/CMD.aspx#tab=Data_Standards). Content areas include demographics, social status, health history, physical examination, diagnostic tests, and guidelines for a variety of specific outcomes and endpoints. The CMD CDE WG selected these documents from existing versions that were generated by other disease area working groups. Some documents were tailored to maximize their suitability for the CMD field. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of CDEs can facilitate CMD clinical research and trial design, data sharing and retrospective analyses. The CDEs that are most relevant to CMD research are like those generated for other NMDs, and CDE documents tailored to CMD are now available to the public. The existence of a single source for these documents facilitates their use in research studies and offers a clear mechanism for the discussion and update of the information as knowledge is gained.

Common data elements for research on traumatic brain injury: pediatric considerations.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant global health problem, with a notably high incidence in children and adolescents. Despite the prevalence of TBI and the disabilities that often follow, research on which to base effective treatment is limited by several challenges, including but not limited to the complexity and heterogeneity of TBI. Even when rigorous methods are employed, the utility of the research may be limited by difficulties in comparing findings across studies resulting from the use of different measures to assess similar TBI study variables. Standardization of definitions and data elements is an important step toward accelerating the process of data sharing that will ultimately lead to a stronger evidence base for treatment advances. To address this need, recommendations for common data elements (CDEs) for research on TBI were developed through a 2009 national initiative. To ensure that the TBI CDE recommendations are relevant to pediatric populations, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) called for a review of the original recommendations. Following the process used for the original initiative, multidisciplinary work groups composed of pediatric TBI experts were formed (Demographics and Clinical Assessment; Biomarkers; Neuroimaging; and Outcomes Assessment). Recommendations for modifications and additions to the original CDEs were developed by the work groups, vetted at a 2010 workshop and further refined in preparation for publication. The pediatric considerations for TBI CDEs are described in a series of articles in this journal. This article describes the efforts leading to this pediatric CDE initiative and the CDE review and development process. It concludes with general recommendations for future iterations of the CDE initiative.

Using the Spinal Cord Injury Common Data Elements.

International Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Data Sets include core, basic, and extended data sets. To date, 13 data sets have been published on the Web site of the International Spinal Cord Injury Society (ISCoS; www.iscos.org.uk), and several more are forthcoming. The data sets are constituted of data elements, which may be appropriate to use in trials conducted to test novel therapeutic candidates including neuroprotective drugs, various cell types, and rehabilitative strategies and devices. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), embarked on a Common Data Element (CDE) Project 5 years ago. The mission of the NINDS CDE Project is to develop data standards for clinical research. The NINDS CDE team has since developed variable names and database structures for the International SCI Data Sets (ie, the SCI CDEs; http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/SCI.aspx). Dataset variable names and database structure are exemplified with the International SCI Core Data Set and the International SCI Cardiovascular Function Basic Data Set. The consistency of the data sets and the CDE format may improve the ability to transfer critical medical information electronically from one center to another. The goals of the SCI CDE initiative are to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical research studies and clinical treatment, increase data quality, facilitate data sharing, and help educate new clinical investigators. Pilot testing the SCI CDEs is an important step to ensure the SCI CDE effort achieves its goals.