Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials: introduction and methodology

Background: As increasing numbers of dengue vaccines and therapeutics are in clinical development, standardized consensus clinical endpoint definitions are urgently needed to assess the efficacy of different interventions with respect to disease severity. We aimed to convene dengue experts representing various sectors and dengue endemic areas to review the literature and propose clinical endpoint definitions for moderate and severe disease based on the framework provided by the WHO 2009 classification. Methods: The endpoints were first proposed and discussed in a structured expert consultation. After that, the Delphi method was carried out to assess the usefulness, validity and feasibility of the standardized clinical disease endpoints for interventional dengue research. Results: Most respondents (> 80%) agreed there is a need for both standardized clinical endpoints and operationalization of severe endpoints. Most respondents (67%) felt there is utility for moderate severity endpoints, but cited challenges in their development. Hospitalization as a moderate endpoint of disease severity or measure of public health impact was deemed to be useful by only 47% of respondents, but 89% felt it could bring about supplemental information if carefully contextualized according to data collection setting. Over half of the respondents favored alignment of the standard endpoints with the WHO guidelines (58%), but cautioned that the endpoints could have ramifications for public health practice. In terms of data granularity of the endpoints, there was a slight preference for a categorical vs numeric system (e.g. 1–10) (47% vs 34%), and 74% of respondents suggested validating the endpoints using large prospective data sets. Conclusion: The structured consensus-building process was successful taking into account the history of the debate around potential endpoints for severe dengue. There is clear support for the development of standardized endpoints for interventional clinical research and the need for subsequent validation with prospective data sets. Challenges include the complexity of developing moderate disease research endpoints for dengue

Dengue illness index—A tool to characterize the subjective dengue illness experience

Dengue virus infections are a major cause of febrile illness that significantly affects individual and societal productivity and drives up health care costs principally in the developing world. Two dengue vaccine candidates are in advanced clinical efficacy trials in Latin America and Asia, and another has been licensed in more than fifteen countries but its uptake has been limited. Despite these advances, standardized metrics for comparability of protective efficacy between dengue vaccines remain poorly defined. The Dengue Illness Index (DII) is a tool that we developed thru refinement of previous similar iterations in an attempt to improve and standardize the measurement of vaccine and drug efficacy in reducing moderate dengue illness. The tool is designed to capture an individual's overall disease experience based on how the totality of their symptoms impacts their general wellness and daily functionality. We applied the DII to a diary card, the Dengue Illness Card (DIC), which was examined and further developed by a working group. The card was then refined with feedback garnered from a Delphi methodology-based query that addressed the adequacy and applicability of the tool in clinical dengue research. There was overall agreement that the tool would generate useful data and provide an alternative perspective to the assessment of drug or vaccine candidates, which in the case of vaccines, are assessed by their reduction in any virologically confirmed dengue of any severity with a focus on the more severe. The DIC needs to be evaluated in the field in the context of vaccine or drug trials, prospective cohort studies, or during experimental human infection studies. Here, we present the final DIC resulting from the Delphi process and offer its further development or use to the dengue research community.status: publishe

Dengue illness index-A tool to characterize the subjective dengue illness experience.

Dengue virus infections are a major cause of febrile illness that significantly affects individual and societal productivity and drives up health care costs principally in the developing world. Two dengue vaccine candidates are in advanced clinical efficacy trials in Latin America and Asia, and another has been licensed in more than fifteen countries but its uptake has been limited. Despite these advances, standardized metrics for comparability of protective efficacy between dengue vaccines remain poorly defined. The Dengue Illness Index (DII) is a tool that we developed thru refinement of previous similar iterations in an attempt to improve and standardize the measurement of vaccine and drug efficacy in reducing moderate dengue illness. The tool is designed to capture an individual's overall disease experience based on how the totality of their symptoms impacts their general wellness and daily functionality. We applied the DII to a diary card, the Dengue Illness Card (DIC), which was examined and further developed by a working group. The card was then refined with feedback garnered from a Delphi methodology-based query that addressed the adequacy and applicability of the tool in clinical dengue research. There was overall agreement that the tool would generate useful data and provide an alternative perspective to the assessment of drug or vaccine candidates, which in the case of vaccines, are assessed by their reduction in any virologically confirmed dengue of any severity with a focus on the more severe. The DIC needs to be evaluated in the field in the context of vaccine or drug trials, prospective cohort studies, or during experimental human infection studies. Here, we present the final DIC resulting from the Delphi process and offer its further development or use to the dengue research community

Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials: introduction and methodology

BACKGROUND: As increasing numbers of dengue vaccines and therapeutics are in clinical development, standardized consensus clinical endpoint definitions are urgently needed to assess the efficacy of different interventions with respect to disease severity. We aimed to convene dengue experts representing various sectors and dengue endemic areas to review the literature and propose clinical endpoint definitions for moderate and severe disease based on the framework provided by the WHO 2009 classification. METHODS: The endpoints were first proposed and discussed in a structured expert consultation. After that, the Delphi method was carried out to assess the usefulness, validity and feasibility of the standardized clinical disease endpoints for interventional dengue research. RESULTS: Most respondents (> 80%) agreed there is a need for both standardized clinical endpoints and operationalization of severe endpoints. Most respondents (67%) felt there is utility for moderate severity endpoints, but cited challenges in their development. Hospitalization as a moderate endpoint of disease severity or measure of public health impact was deemed to be useful by only 47% of respondents, but 89% felt it could bring about supplemental information if carefully contextualized according to data collection setting. Over half of the respondents favored alignment of the standard endpoints with the WHO guidelines (58%), but cautioned that the endpoints could have ramifications for public health practice. In terms of data granularity of the endpoints, there was a slight preference for a categorical vs numeric system (e.g. 1-10) (47% vs 34%), and 74% of respondents suggested validating the endpoints using large prospective data sets. CONCLUSION: The structured consensus-building process was successful taking into account the history of the debate around potential endpoints for severe dengue. There is clear support for the development of standardized endpoints for interventional clinical research and the need for subsequent validation with prospective data sets. Challenges include the complexity of developing moderate disease research endpoints for dengue.status: publishe

Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials

Dengue is a major public health problem worldwide. Although several drug candidates have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials, none has been effective and at present, early recognition of severe dengue and timely supportive care are used to reduce mortality. While the first dengue vaccine was recently licensed, and several other candidates are in late stage clinical trials, future decisions regarding widespread deployment of vaccines and/or therapeutics will require evidence of product safety, efficacy and effectiveness. Standard, quantifiable clinical endpoints are needed to ensure reproducibility and comparability of research findings. To address this need, we established a working group of dengue researchers and public health specialists to develop standardized endpoints and work towards consensus opinion on those endpoints. After discussion at two working group meetings and presentations at international conferences, a Delphi methodology-based query was used to finalize and operationalize the clinical endpoints. Participants were asked to select the best endpoints from proposed definitions or offer revised/new definitions, and to indicate whether contributing items should be designated as optional or required. After the third round of inquiry, 70% or greater agreement was reached on moderate and severe plasma leakage, moderate and severe bleeding, acute hepatitis and acute liver failure, and moderate and severe neurologic disease. There was less agreement regarding moderate and severe thrombocytopenia and moderate and severe myocarditis. Notably, 68% of participants agreed that a 50,000 to 20,000 mm3 platelet range be used to define moderate thrombocytopenia; however, they remained divided on whether a rapid decreasing trend or one platelet count should be case defining. While at least 70% agreement was reached on most endpoints, the process identified areas for further evaluation and standardization within the context of ongoing clinical studies. These endpoints can be used to harmonize data collection and improve comparability between dengue clinical trials.status: publishe

Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials

Dengue is a major public health problem worldwide. Although several drug candidates have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials, none has been effective and at present, early recognition of severe dengue and timely supportive care are used to reduce mortality. While the first dengue vaccine was recently licensed, and several other candidates are in late stage clinical trials, future decisions regarding widespread deployment of vaccines and/or therapeutics will require evidence of product safety, efficacy and effectiveness. Standard, quantifiable clinical endpoints are needed to ensure reproducibility and comparability of research findings. To address this need, we established a working group of dengue researchers and public health specialists to develop standardized endpoints and work towards consensus opinion on those endpoints. After discussion at two working group meetings and presentations at international conferences, a Delphi methodology-based query was used to finalize and operationalize the clinical endpoints. Participants were asked to select the best endpoints from proposed definitions or offer revised/new definitions, and to indicate whether contributing items should be designated as optional or required. After the third round of inquiry, 70% or greater agreement was reached on moderate and severe plasma leakage, moderate and severe bleeding, acute hepatitis and acute liver failure, and moderate and severe neurologic disease. There was less agreement regarding moderate and severe thrombocytopenia and moderate and severe myocarditis. Notably, 68% of participants agreed that a 50,000 to 20,000 mm3 platelet range be used to define moderate thrombocytopenia; however, they remained divided on whether a rapid decreasing trend or one platelet count should be case defining. While at least 70% agreement was reached on most endpoints, the process identified areas for further evaluation and standardization within the context of ongoing clinical studies. These endpoints can be used to harmonize data collection and improve comparability between dengue clinical trials