Standardized outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth, an ICHOM proposal

Background: Value-based health care aims to optimize the balance of patient outcomes and health care costs. To improve value in perinatal care using this strategy, standard outcomes must first be defined. The objective of this work was to define a minimum, internationally appropriate set of outcome measures for evaluating and improving perinatal care with a focus on outcomes that matter to women and their families. Methods: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set. Results: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined. Conclusions: We propose a set of outcome measures for evaluating the care that women and infants receive during pregnancy and the postpartum period. While validation and refinement via pilot implementation projects are needed, we view this as an important initial step towards value-based improvements in care

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer

Background Value-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment. Objective To develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value. Design, setting, and participants We convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set. Results and limitations We recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. Conclusions We have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care. Patient summary Measuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer

Treatment with galectin-1 improves myogenic potential and membrane repair in dysferlin-deficient models.

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2B (LGMD2B) is caused by mutations in the dysferlin gene, resulting in non-functional dysferlin, a key protein found in muscle membrane. Treatment options available for patients are chiefly palliative in nature and focus on maintaining ambulation. Our hypothesis is that galectin-1 (Gal-1), a soluble carbohydrate binding protein, increases membrane repair capacity and myogenic potential of dysferlin-deficient muscle cells and muscle fibers. To test this hypothesis, we used recombinant human galectin-1 (rHsGal-1) to treat dysferlin-deficient models. We show that rHsGal-1 treatments of 48 h-72 h promotes myogenic maturation as indicated through improvements in size, myotube alignment, myoblast migration, and membrane repair capacity in dysferlin-deficient myotubes and myofibers. Furthermore, increased membrane repair capacity of dysferlin-deficient myotubes, independent of increased myogenic maturation is apparent and co-localizes on the membrane of myotubes after a brief 10min treatment with labeled rHsGal-1. We show the carbohydrate recognition domain of Gal-1 is necessary for observed membrane repair. Improvements in membrane repair after only a 10 min rHsGal-1treatment suggest mechanical stabilization of the membrane due to interaction with glycosylated membrane bound, ECM or yet to be identified ligands through the CDR domain of Gal-1. rHsGal-1 shows calcium-independent membrane repair in dysferlin-deficient and wild-type myotubes and myofibers. Together our novel results reveal Gal-1 mediates disease pathologies through both changes in integral myogenic protein expression and mechanical membrane stabilization

A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain

Background and purpose - Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. Patients and methods - An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions. Results - Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on preexisting tools. Interpretation - The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer

AbstractBackgroundValue-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment.ObjectiveTo develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value.Design, setting, and participantsWe convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set.Results and limitationsWe recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons.ConclusionsWe have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care.Patient summaryMeasuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide

Development of a Standardized Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Effort for a Unified Approach.

BACKGROUND: There are no universally monitored outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer, making it challenging to compare health outcomes between populations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a standard set of outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer to follow during routine clinical care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled a multidisciplinary working group to develop the set. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus regarding the outcomes, measures, and case mix factors included. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 25 members of the multidisciplinary international working group represented academic and nonacademic centers, registries, and patients. Recognizing the heterogeneity of men with advanced prostate cancer, the group defined the scope as men with all stages of incurable prostate cancer (metastatic and biochemical recurrence ineligible for further curative therapy). We defined outcomes important to all men, such as overall survival, and measures specific to subgroups, such as time to metastasis. Measures gathered from clinical data include measures of disease control. We also identified patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as degree of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction, mood symptoms, and pain control. CONCLUSIONS: The international multidisciplinary group identified clinical data and PROMs that serve as a basis for international health outcome comparisons and quality-of-care assessments. The set will be revised annually. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our international group has recommended a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes to be followed during routine care for all men with advanced prostate cancer