A review of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register reveals inconsistency in the choice and measurement of SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.</ns3:p

Can harmonisation of outcomes bridge the translation gap for pre-clinical research? A systematic review of outcomes measured in mouse models of type 2 diabetes

Background: In pre-clinical research, systematic reviews have the potential to mitigate translational challenges by facilitating understanding of how pre-clinical studies can inform future clinical research. Yet their conduct is encumbered by heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported, and those outcomes may not always relate to the most clinically important outcomes. We aimed to systematically review outcomes measured and reported in pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions to treat high blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes. Methods: A systematic review of pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions aimed at addressing elevated blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes was completed. Studies were screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted from the included studies. The outcomes were recorded verbatim and classified into outcome domains using an existing outcome taxonomy. Outcomes were also compared to those identified in a systematic review of registered phase 3/4 clinical trials for glucose lowering interventions in people with type 2 diabetes. Results: Review of 280 included studies identified 532 unique outcomes across 19 domains. No single outcome, or domain, was measured in all studies and only 132 (21%) had also been measured in registered phase 3/4 clinical trials. A core outcome set, representing the minimum that should be measured and reported, developed for type 2 diabetes effectiveness clinical trials includes 18 core outcomes, of these 12 (71%) outcomes were measured and reported in one or more of the included pre-clinical studies. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity of outcomes reported in pre-clinical research. Harmonisation of outcomes across the research pathway using a core outcome set may facilitate interpretation, evidence synthesis and translational success, and may contribute to the refinement of the use of animals in research. Systematic review registration: The study was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO Database, registration number CRD4201810683

The importance of integration of stakeholder views in core outcome set development: Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate

© 2015 Harman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background: Approximately 75% of children with cleft palate (CP) have Otitis Media with Effusion (OME) histories. Evidence for the effective management of OME in these children is lacking. The inconsistency in outcome measurement in previous studies has led to a call for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS). Despite the increase in the number of published COS, involvement of patients in the COS development process, and methods to integrate the views of patients and health professionals, to date have been limited. Methods and Findings: A list of outcomes measured in previous research was identified through reviewing the literature. Opinion on the importance of each of these outcomes was then sought from key stakeholders: Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) surgeons, audiologists, cleft surgeons, speech and language therapists, specialist cleft nurses, psychologists, parents and children. The opinion of health professionals was sought in a three round Delphi survey where participants were asked to score each outcome using a bespoke online system. Parents and children were also asked to score outcomes in a survey and provided an in-depth insight into having OME through semi-structured interviews. The results of the Delphi survey, interviews and parent/patient survey were brought together in a final consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholders. A final set of eleven outcomes reached the definition of "consensus in" to form the recommended COS: hearing; chronic otitis media (COM); OME; receptive language skills; speech development; psycho social development; acute otitis media (AOM); cholesteatoma; side effects of treatment; listening skills; otalgia. Conclusions: We have produced a recommendation about the outcomes that should be measured, as a minimum, in studies of the management of OME in children with CP. The development process included input from key stakeholders and used novel methodology to integrate the opinion of healthcare professionals, parents and children

Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: A survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences

Background: The Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice outlines a three-committee trial oversight structure – the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the Data Monitoring Committee and the Trial Steering Committee. In this model, the Trial Steering Committee is the executive committee that oversees the trial and considers the recommendations from the Data Monitoring Committee. There is yet to be in-depth consideration establishing the Trial Steering Committee’s role and functionality. Methods: A survey to establish Trial Steering Committee’s current practices, role and the use and opinion on the Medical Research Council guidelines was undertaken within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units. Results: Completed surveys were obtained from 38 of 47 fully and partially registered Units. Individual items in the survey were analysed and reported spanning current Trial Steering Committee practices including its role, requirement and experience required for membership; methods to identify members; and meeting frequency. Terms (a document describing the committee’s remit, objectives and functionality) were obtained and analysed from 21 of 33 Units with documents in place at their Unit. A total of 20 responders suggested aspects of the current Medical Research Council Guidelines that need improvement. Conclusion: We present the first survey reporting on practices within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units on the experience and remits of Trial Steering Committees. We have identified a widespread adoption of Medical Research Council Guidelines for Trial Steering Committees in the United Kingdom, but limitations in this existing provision have been identified that need to be addressed. </jats:sec

A cohort examination to establish reporting of the remit and function of Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The DAMOCLES project established a widely used Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) Charter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Typically, within the UK, the DMC is advisory and recommends to another executive body; the Trial Steering Committee (TSC). Despite the executive role of the TSC, the CONSORT Statement does not explicitly require reporting of TSC activity, although is included as an example of good reporting. A lack of guidance on TSC reporting can impact transparency of trial oversight, ultimately leading to a misunderstanding regarding role and, subsequently, further variation in practice. This review aimed to establish reporting practice of TSC involvement in RCTs, and thus make recommendations for reporting. METHODS: A cohort examination identifying reporting practice was undertaken. The cohort comprised RCTs published in three leading medical journals (the British Medical Journal, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine) within 6 months in 2012 and the full NIHR HTA Monograph series. Details of TSC constitution and impact were extracted from main publications and published supplements. RESULTS: Of 415 publications, 264 were eligible. These were typical in terms of trial design. Variations in reporting between journals and monographs was notable. TSC presence was identified in approximately half of trials (n = 144), of which 109 worked alongside a DMC. No publications justified not convening a TSC. When reported, the role of the committee and examples of impact in design, conduct and analysis were summarised. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first review of reporting TSC activity in the published academic literature. An absence of reporting standards with regards to TSC constitution, activity and impact on trial conduct was identified which can influence transparency of reporting trial oversight. Consistent reporting is vital for the benefits and impact of the TSC role to be understood to support adoption of this oversight structure and reduce global variations in practice

A One Health overview, facilitating advances in comparative medicine and translational research.

Table of contentsA1 One health advances and successes in comparative medicine and translational researchCheryl StroudA2 Dendritic cell-targeted gorilla adenoviral vector for cancer vaccination for canine melanomaIgor Dmitriev, Elena Kashentseva, Jeffrey N. Bryan, David T. CurielA3 Viroimmunotherapy for malignant melanoma in the companion dog modelJeffrey N. Bryan, David Curiel, Igor Dmitriev, Elena Kashentseva, Hans Rindt, Carol Reinero, Carolyn J. HenryA4 Of mice and men (and dogs!): development of a commercially licensed xenogeneic DNA vaccine for companion animals with malignant melanomaPhilip J. BergmanA5 Successful immunotherapy with a recombinant HER2-expressing Listeria monocytogenes in dogs with spontaneous osteosarcoma paves the way for advances in pediatric osteosarcomaNicola J. Mason, Josephine S. Gnanandarajah, Julie B. Engiles, Falon Gray, Danielle Laughlin, Anita Gaurnier-Hausser, Anu Wallecha, Margie Huebner, Yvonne PatersonA6 Human clinical development of ADXS-HER2Daniel O'ConnorA7 Leveraging use of data for both human and veterinary benefitLaura S. TremlA8 Biologic replacement of the knee: innovations and early clinical resultsJames P. StannardA9 Mizzou BioJoint Center: a translational success storyJames L. CookA10 University and industry translational partnership: from the lab to commercializationMarc JacobsA11 Beyond docking: an evolutionarily guided OneHealth approach to drug discoveryGerald J. Wyckoff, Lee Likins, Ubadah Sabbagh, Andrew SkaffA12 Challenges and opportunities for data applications in animal health: from precision medicine to precision husbandryAmado S. GuloyA13 A cloud-based programmable platform for healthHarlen D. HaysA14 Comparative oncology: One Health in actionAmy K. LeBlancA15 Companion animal diseases bridge the translational gap for human neurodegenerative diseaseJoan R. Coates, Martin L. Katz, Leslie A. Lyons, Gayle C. Johnson, Gary S. Johnson, Dennis P. O'BrienA16 Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapyDongsheng DuanA17 Polycystic kidney disease: cellular mechanisms to emerging therapiesJames P. CalvetA18 The domestic cat as a large animal model for polycystic kidney diseaseLeslie A. Lyons, Barbara GandolfiA19 The support of basic and clinical research by the Polycystic Kidney Disease FoundationDavid A. BaronA20 Using naturally occurring large animal models of human disease to enable clinical translation: treatment of arthritis using autologous stromal vascular fraction in dogsMark L. WeissA21 Regulatory requirements regarding clinical use of human cells, tissues, and tissue-based productsDebra A. WebsterA22 Regenerative medicine approaches to Type 1 diabetes treatmentFrancis N. KaranuA23 The zoobiquity of canine diabetes mellitus, man's best friend is a friend indeed-islet transplantationEdward J. RobbA24 One Medicine: a development model for cellular therapy of diabetesRobert J. Harman

Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study.

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments

Development of an online resource for recruitment research in clinical trials to organise and map current literature

Medical Research Council (MRC) Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (MR/L004933/1– B2).Peer reviewedPublisher PD