Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices).

In the European Union (EU), the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity assessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the Medical Device Directive, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details - which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024. Here, we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:839-849. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210081

Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but inconsistent effect rates and uncertain evidence levels have warranted caution. To clarify, we aimed to establish the evidence of FMT for recurrent CDI, updated across different delivery methods, treatment regimens, and in comparison with standard antibiotics. Methods In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Key, and Svemed+ for FMT literature published in English until November 11, 2019. We included observational and clinical trials with or without antibiotic comparators and excluded studies with below 8 weeks follow-up and fewer than 15 patients. The primary outcome was clinical outcome by week 8. We comprehensively extracted patient and procedural data. In a random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the clinical effect for repeat or single FMT, different delivery methods, and versus antibiotics. We rated the evidence according to the Cochrane and GRADE methods. The PROSPERO preregistration number is CRD42020158112. Findings Of 1816 studies assessed, 45 studies were included. The overall clinical effect week 8 following repeat FMT (24 studies, 1855 patients) was 91% (95% CI: 89–94%, I2=53%) and 84% (80–88%, I2=86%) following single FMT (43 studies, 2937 patients). Delivery by lower gastrointestinal endoscopy was superior to all other delivery methods, and repeat FMT significantly increased the treatment effect week 8 (P<0·001). Compared with vancomycin, the number needed to treat (NNT) for repeat FMT was 1·5 (1·3–1·9, P<0·001) and 2.9 (1·5–37·1, P=0·03) for single FMT. Repeat FMT had high quality of evidence. Interpretation High-quality evidence supports FMT is effective for recurrent CDI, but its effect varies with the delivery method and the number of administrations. The superior NNT for FMT compared with antibiotics suggests that patients may benefit from advancing FMT to all instances of recurrent CDI

The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) methodology: Combining global proportions in a pooled analysis

Introduction: Data concerning the global burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) are limited. Reported prevalence estimates vary between 0.0003% and 4.1%, and data from various geographical regions are still to be collected. Previously reported prevalence rates have been limited by the methodological approach and source of data. This has resulted in great heterogeneity as prevalence data from physician-diagnosed cases poorly match those of self-reported apparent HS disease. Methods: The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) introduces an innovative approach to determine the global prevalence of HS. This approach involves using a previously validated questionnaire to screen apparently healthy adults accompanying a patient to a non-dermatological outpatient clinic visit in a hospital. The screening questionnaire (i.e., the index test) is combined with a subsequent physician-based in-person validation (i.e., the reference standard) of the participants who screen positive. Ten percent of the screen-negative participants are also clinically assessed to verify the diagnostic precision of the test. The local prevalence (pi) will be estimated from each country that submits the number of patients who are HS positive according to the index test and clinical examination (n), and the corresponding total number of observations (N). Conclusion: The GHiSA Global Prevalence studies are currently running simultaneously in 58 countries across six continents (Africa, Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia). The goal of the combined global proportion is the generation of a single summary (i.e., proportional meta-analysis), which will be done after a logit transformation, and synthesized using a random-effects model. The novel standardization of the Global Prevalence studies conducted through GHiSA enables direct international comparisons, which were previously not possible due to substantial heterogeneity in past HS prevalence studies

Hawk Eyes II: Diurnal Raptors Differ in Head Movement Strategies When Scanning from Perches

Background Relatively little is known about the degree of inter-specific variability in visual scanning strategies in species with laterally placed eyes (e.g., birds). This is relevant because many species detect prey while perching; therefore, head movement behavior may be an indicator of prey detection rate, a central parameter in foraging models. We studied head movement strategies in three diurnal raptors belonging to the Accipitridae and Falconidae families. Methodology/Principal Findings We used behavioral recording of individuals under field and captive conditions to calculate the rate of two types of head movements and the interval between consecutive head movements. Cooper\u27s Hawks had the highest rate of regular head movements, which can facilitate tracking prey items in the visually cluttered environment they inhabit (e.g., forested habitats). On the other hand, Red-tailed Hawks showed long intervals between consecutive head movements, which is consistent with prey searching in less visually obstructed environments (e.g., open habitats) and with detecting prey movement from a distance with their central foveae. Finally, American Kestrels have the highest rates of translational head movements (vertical or frontal displacements of the head keeping the bill in the same direction), which have been associated with depth perception through motion parallax. Higher translational head movement rates may be a strategy to compensate for the reduced degree of eye movement of this species. Conclusions Cooper\u27s Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, and American Kestrels use both regular and translational head movements, but to different extents. We conclude that these diurnal raptors have species-specific strategies to gather visual information while perching. These strategies may optimize prey search and detection with different visual systems in habitat types with different degrees of visual obstruction

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

: In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, whereas authorizing the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralized to independent 'conformity assessment' organizations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details-which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe

Consequences of outbreeding on phenotypic plasticity in Drosophila mercatorum wings

A multivariate morphometric investigation was conducted on wings of two parthenogenetic Drosophila mercatorum strains and offspring (F1) of crosses between these parthenogenetic strains with highly inbred sexual individuals of the same species. The parental flies and F1 offspring were reared at three different temperatures: 20, 25, or 28°C. This design allows a comparison of completely homozygous individuals (parental generation) with identical heterozygote offspring (F1), which makes an analysis of phenotypic plasticity of morphometric traits possible, without a potentially confounding effect of genotype-environment interactions, which can increase the phenotypic variability. The same pattern of phenotypic plasticity of wing size between the homozygous parental strains and the heterozygous offspring was found in both strains with an apparent heterotic effect for wing size in the F1 at 25°C. At 20 and 28°C flies from the parental generation had the biggest wings. Phenotypic plasticity of shape was found to be strain dependent. A reduced level of developmental instability (DI) was found in the F1 as compared to the parental strain only in strain 1 reared at 20°C for the wing size and 25°C for the wing shape. For all the other treatments higher DI was found in the F1 when the difference was significant, which is suggestive of outbreeding depression. These findings are difficult to interpret since an apparent heterotic effect of size at 25°C is accompanied by higher DI (though not significant in strain 2) and complex changes in wing shape. Hence, we cannot conclude whether outbreeding lowers or increases the capacity to respond to environmental change via plastic responses and via changes of the level of DI. The degree of change of phenotypic plasticity and DI is trait specific, depending on the environment and on the genotypes which are hybridizing. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.Peer Reviewe