Better reporting and greater homogeneity in outcome measures are seen in randomized trial protocols when guidelines exist

Range and Consistency of Cardiovascular Outcomes Reported by Clinical Trials in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Trial evidence to improve cardiovascular outcomes is limited by inconsistent reporting of outcomes, which may also lack patient-relevance. This study aimed to assess the range and consistency of cardiovascular outcomes reported by contemporary trials in kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

A systematic review of all randomized controlled trials involving adult kidney transplant recipients that reported at least 1 cardiovascular outcome from January 2012 to December 2019 was performed, including Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases. Trial characteristics were extracted and all levels of specification of the cardiovascular outcome measures reported were analyzed (the measure definition, metric' and method of aggregation). Measures assessing a similar aspect of cardiovascular disease were categorized into outcomes.

Results

From 93 eligible trials involving 27 609 participants, 490 outcome measures were identified. The outcome measures were grouped into 38 outcomes. A cardiovascular composite was the most common outcome reported (40 trials, 43%) followed by cardiovascular mortality (42%) and acute coronary syndrome (31%). Cardiovascular composite was also the most heterogeneous outcome with 77 measures reported followed by cardiovascular mortality (n = 58) and inflammatory biomarkers (n = 51). The most common cardiovascular composite outcome components reported were major cardiovascular events (18 trials), stroke unspecified (11 trials), and myocardial infarction unspecified (10 trials).

Conclusions

There is substantial heterogeneity in cardiovascular outcome reporting in kidney transplant trials.

Range and Variability of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Patients With Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Trials in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) have increased, but their impact on decision making has been limited. Because heterogeneity in reported outcomes may be responsible, we assessed their range and variability in ADPKD trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING & STUDY POPULATION

Adult participants in clinical trials in ADPKD.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

We included trials that studied adults and were published in English. For trials that enrolled patients without ADPKD, only those enrolling ≥50% of participants with ADPKD were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted information on all discrete outcome measures, grouped them into 97 domains, and classified them into clinical, surrogate, and patient-reported categories. For each category, we choose the 3 most frequently reported domains and performed a detailed analysis of outcome measures.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Frequencies and characteristics of outcome measures were described.

RESULTS

Among 68 trials, 1,413 different outcome measures were reported. 97 domains were identified; 41 (42%) were surrogate, 30 (31%) were clinical, and 26 (27%) were patient reported. The 3 most frequently reported domains were in the surrogate category: kidney function (54; 79% of trials; using 46 measures), kidney and cyst volumes (43; 63% of trials; 52 measures), and blood pressure (27; 40% of trials, 30 measures); in the clinical category: infection (10; 15%; 21 measures), cardiovascular events (9; 13%; 6 measures), and kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy (8; 12%; 5 measures); and in the patient-reported category: pain related to ADPKD (16; 24%; 26 measures), pain for other reasons (11; 16%; 11 measures), and diarrhea/constipation/gas (10; 15%; 9 measures).

LIMITATIONS

Outcome measures were assessed for only the top 3 domains in each category.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in ADPKD trials are broad in scope and highly variable. Surrogate outcomes were most frequently reported. Patient-reported outcomes were uncommon. A consensus-based set of core outcomes meaningful to patients and clinicians is needed for future ADPKD trials.

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

Background

Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes.

Method

Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7–9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best–worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically.

Results

The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best–worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best–worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle.

Conclusions

Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD.

Vascular Access Outcomes Reported in Maintenance Hemodialysis Trials: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Many randomized controlled trials have been performed with the goal of improving outcomes related to hemodialysis vascular access. If the reported outcomes are relevant and measured consistently to allow comparison of interventions across trials, such trials can inform decision making. This study aimed to assess the scope and consistency of vascular access outcomes reported in contemporary hemodialysis trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING & POPULATION

Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Any hemodialysis-related intervention.

OUTCOMES

The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified.

RESULTS

From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions.

LIMITATIONS

Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis.

Core Outcomes in Aphasia Treatment Research: An e-Delphi Consensus Study of International Aphasia Researchers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to identify outcome constructs that aphasia researchers consider essential to measure in all aphasia treatment research.

METHOD

Purposively sampled researchers were invited to participate in a 3-round e-Delphi exercise. In Round 1, an open-ended question was used to elicit important outcome constructs; responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of each outcome using a 9-point rating scale. Outcomes reaching predefined consensus criteria were further analyzed using International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health coding.

RESULTS

Eighty researchers commenced Round 1, with 72 completing the entire survey. High response rates (≥ 85%) were achieved in subsequent rounds. Consensus was reached on 6 outcomes: (a) language functioning in modalities relevant to study aims, (b) impact of treatment from the perspective of the person with aphasia (PWA), (c) communication-related quality of life, (d) satisfaction with intervention from the perspective of the PWA, (e) satisfaction with ability to communicate from the perspective of the PWA, and (f) satisfaction with participation in activities from the perspective of the PWA.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached that it is essential to measure language function and specific patient-reported outcomes in all aphasia treatment research. These results will contribute to the development of a core outcome set.