Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research : An international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Implicating genes, pleiotropy, and sexual dimorphism at blood lipid loci through multi-ancestry meta-analysis

Funding Information: GMP, PN, and CW are supported by NHLBI R01HL127564. GMP and PN are supported by R01HL142711. AG acknowledge support from the Wellcome Trust (201543/B/16/Z), European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement no. HEALTH-F2-2013–601456 (CVGenes@Target) & the TriPartite Immunometabolism Consortium [TrIC]-Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Grant number NNF15CC0018486. JMM is supported by American Diabetes Association Innovative and Clinical Translational Award 1–19-ICTS-068. SR was supported by the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence in Complex Disease Genetics (Grant No 312062), the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and University of Helsinki HiLIFE Fellow and Grand Challenge grants. EW was supported by the Finnish innovation fund Sitra (EW) and Finska Läkaresällskapet. CNS was supported by American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowships 15POST24470131 and 17POST33650016. Charles N Rotimi is supported by Z01HG200362. Zhe Wang, Michael H Preuss, and Ruth JF Loos are supported by R01HL142302. NJT is a Wellcome Trust Investigator (202802/Z/16/Z), is the PI of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (MRC & WT 217065/Z/19/Z), is supported by the University of Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215–2001) and the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011), and works within the CRUK Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (C18281/A19169). Ruth E Mitchell is a member of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol funded by the MRC (MC_UU_00011/1). Simon Haworth is supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Fellowship. Paul S. de Vries was supported by American Heart Association grant number 18CDA34110116. Julia Ramierz acknowledges support by the People Programme of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme grant n° 608765 and Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant n° 786833. Maria Sabater-Lleal is supported by a Miguel Servet contract from the ISCIII Spanish Health Institute (CP17/00142) and co-financed by the European Social Fund. Jian Yang is funded by the Westlake Education Foundation. Olga Giannakopoulou has received funding from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) (FS/14/66/3129). CHARGE Consortium cohorts were supported by R01HL105756. Study-specific acknowledgements are available in the Additional file : Supplementary Note. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Background: Genetic variants within nearly 1000 loci are known to contribute to modulation of blood lipid levels. However, the biological pathways underlying these associations are frequently unknown, limiting understanding of these findings and hindering downstream translational efforts such as drug target discovery. Results: To expand our understanding of the underlying biological pathways and mechanisms controlling blood lipid levels, we leverage a large multi-ancestry meta-analysis (N = 1,654,960) of blood lipids to prioritize putative causal genes for 2286 lipid associations using six gene prediction approaches. Using phenome-wide association (PheWAS) scans, we identify relationships of genetically predicted lipid levels to other diseases and conditions. We confirm known pleiotropic associations with cardiovascular phenotypes and determine novel associations, notably with cholelithiasis risk. We perform sex-stratified GWAS meta-analysis of lipid levels and show that 3–5% of autosomal lipid-associated loci demonstrate sex-biased effects. Finally, we report 21 novel lipid loci identified on the X chromosome. Many of the sex-biased autosomal and X chromosome lipid loci show pleiotropic associations with sex hormones, emphasizing the role of hormone regulation in lipid metabolism. Conclusions: Taken together, our findings provide insights into the biological mechanisms through which associated variants lead to altered lipid levels and potentially cardiovascular disease risk.Peer reviewe

Considerations in Adapting Clinical Trial Design

The concept of adaptation of trial design during the course of a clinical trial has recently drawn much interest from the pharmaceutical industry. The interest arises partly because statistical decision trees employed to address multiple complex clinical hypotheses within a clinical trial are increasingly complex, and the statistical information generated from learning data prior to designing the trial is often insufficient to provide informative guidance for planning a pivotal trial. While the conventional fixed designs, which usually permit no modification influenced by the internal trial data of key design specifications, often cannot cover the range of complex statistical decision trees that must be prespecified in the study protocol, it seems natural to consider modifications of trial design at some point in the trial. In regulatory practice, some adjustments to study protocols are mostly made known to regulatory agencies in the form of so-called protocol amendments. However, such design modifications may demand careful consideration in dealing with any biases that may be caused by the adaptation, and may impede the interpretability of trial results

2017 cardiovascular and stroke endpoint definitions for clinical trials

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials