Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes

Person-reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

AIM

Recently, efforts have been made to use and report person-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we aim to (1) assess the status of inclusion of PROs in registered RCTs over 5 years in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and (2) map the PRO measures (PROMs) onto predefined domains.

METHODS

The largest trial registries (Clinicatrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Platform and ISRCTN) were systematically searched for RCTs in people with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes of all ages between 2018 and 2023. Coding of PROs comprised: (1) PRO measure(s) included yes or no; if yes: (2) PRO(s) as primary outcome yes or no; and (3) mapping PROMs onto predefined PRO domains and per type of intervention.

RESULTS

N = 1543 trials met our inclusion criteria, of which n = 673 (44%) included PROs, assessed by 545 different measures. Twenty per cent of drug trials (n = 112) and 71% of behavioural interventions (n = 405) included PROs. In 149 trials (9.6%), a PRO was the primary outcome. The psychological functioning domain was most often assessed across all trials (21.6%), specifically in behavioural (44.8%) and medical device interventions (29.7%). In drug trials, the physical functioning and functional health domain was most included (9%). Across all trials, the social and family functioning domain was least assessed (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

We noticed an increase in the inclusion of PROs in diabetes RCTs. However, PROs are rarely included as primary outcomes in the majority of studies, particularly in drug trials. The heterogeneity of PROMs used in RCTs underscores the need for standardisation of PROs.

Patient-important outcomes in type 2 diabetes: The paradigm of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

The newfound knowledge in type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the past decade for the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) is wealthy in favorable results for key patient-important outcomes including morbidity, mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA offer cardiovascular and renal protection beyond their glucose lowering effect, reduce body weight and hypoglycemia and improve diabetes-related distress, physical function and HRQoL. Along with the fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin/GLP-1RA, they make feasible a regimen simplification and de-escalation from high dose and multiple injections of insulin reducing treatment burden. Besides cardiorenal risk reduction, the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA reduce the incidence of depression, cognitive decline, respiratory disease, gout, arrhythmias and other co-occurring conditions of T2D, namely multimorbidity, which frequently complicates T2D and adversely affects HRQoL. The alleviation of multimorbidity by the pleiotropic effects of the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA, could improve patients' HRQoL. The use of the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA should be increased within a shared decision-making in which they are reframed as cardiorenal risk-reducing medications with the potential to lower blood glucose. By improving outcomes that patients may highly perceive and value, the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA may facilitate the contemporary person-centered management of T2D.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is associated with high risks of premature chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular diseases, cardiovascular death and impaired quality of life. People with diabetes are more likely to develop kidney impairment, and approximately one in three adults with diabetes have CKD. People with CKD and diabetes experience a substantially higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown potential effects in preventing kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes. However, new trials are emerging rapidly, and evidence synthesis is essential to summarising cumulative evidence.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of SGLT2 inhibitors for people with CKD and diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 November 2023 using a search strategy designed by an Information Specialist. Studies in the Register are continually identified through regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies were eligible if they evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo, standard care or other glucose-lowering agents in people with CKD and diabetes. CKD includes all stages (from 1 to 5), including dialysis patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary review outcomes were all-cause death, 3-point and 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, and kidney failure.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies randomising 65,241 people with CKD and diabetes were included. SGLT2 inhibitors with or without other background treatments were compared to placebo, standard care, sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, or insulin. In the majority of domains, the risks of bias in the included studies were low or unclear. No studies evaluated the treatment in children or in people treated with dialysis. No studies compared SGLT2 inhibitors with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or tirzepatide. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors decreased the risk of all-cause death (20 studies, 44,397 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; high certainty) and cardiovascular death (16 studies, 43,792 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; I2 = 29%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably make little or no difference to the risk of fatal or nonfatal MI (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14; I2 = 24%; moderate certainty), and fatal or nonfatal stroke (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably decrease 3-point MACE (7 studies, 38,320 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; I2 = 46%; moderate certainty), and 4-point MACE (4 studies, 23,539 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96; I2 = 77%; moderate certainty), and decrease hospital admission due to heart failure (6 studies, 28,339 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 17%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease creatinine clearance (1 study, 132 participants: MD -2.63 mL/min, 95% CI -5.19 to -0.07; low certainty) and probably decrease the doubling of serum creatinine (2 studies, 12,647 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89; I2 = 53%; moderate certainty). SGLT2 inhibitors decrease the risk of kidney failure (6 studies, 11,232 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and kidney composite outcomes (generally reported as kidney failure, kidney death with or without ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) (7 studies, 36,380 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78; I2 = 25%; high certainty) compared to placebo. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors incur less hypoglycaemia (16 studies, 28,322 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and hypoglycaemia requiring third-party assistance (14 studies, 26,478 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and probably decrease the withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (15 studies, 16,622 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty). The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on eGFR, amputation and fracture were uncertain. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on fatigue, life participation, or lactic acidosis. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to standard care alone, sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitors, or insulin were uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SGLT2 inhibitors alone or added to standard care decrease all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and kidney failure and probably decrease major cardiovascular events while incurring less hypoglycaemia compared to placebo in people with CKD and diabetes.

Standardising personalised diabetes care across European health settings: A person-centred outcome set agreed in a multinational Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Standardised person-reported outcomes (PRO) data can contextualise clinical outcomes enabling precision diabetes monitoring and care. Comprehensive outcome sets can guide this process, but their implementation in routine diabetes care has remained challenging and unsuccessful at international level. We aimed to address this by developing a person-centred outcome set for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, using a methodology with prospects for increased implementability and sustainability in international health settings.

METHODS

We used a three-round questionnaire-based Delphi study to reach consensus on the outcome set. We invited key stakeholders from 19 countries via purposive snowball sampling, namely people with diabetes (N = 94), healthcare professionals (N = 65), industry (N = 22) and health authorities (N = 3), to vote on the relevance and measurement frequency of 64 previously identified clinical and person-reported outcomes. Subsequent consensus meetings concluded the study.

RESULTS

The list of preliminary outcomes was shortlisted via the consensus process to 46 outcomes (27 clinical outcomes and 19 PROs). Two main collection times were recommended: (1) linked to a medical visit (e.g. diabetes-specific well-being, symptoms and psychological health) and (2) annually (e.g. clinical data, general well-being and diabetes self management-related outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

PROs are often considered in a non-standardised way in routine diabetes care. We propose a person-centred outcome set for diabetes, specifically considering psychosocial and behavioural aspects, which was agreed by four international key stakeholder groups. It guides standardised collection of meaningful outcomes at scale, supporting individual and population level healthcare decision making. It will be implemented and tested in Europe as part of the H2O project.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement.

RESULTS

We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes.

AIMS

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI.

METHODS

The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Chinese patent medicine as a complementary and alternative therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to document Chinese Patent Medicines (CPMs) for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, explore whether CPMs can improve patients' health outcomes, and set priorities in addressing research gaps in this area.

METHODS

Following the framework of PRISMA-SCr, we proposed the research questions based on PICOS principle, and searched the CPMs for T2DM from three drug lists, followed by a systematic search of the literature in eight databases from their inception to June 22, 2023. Then, we developed the eligibility criteria and systematically reviewed the relevant studies, retained the studies about CPMs for T2DM, extracted the related data, and identified the differences across studies in structured charts.

RESULTS

A total of 25 types of CPMs were extracted from the three drug lists. Radix astragali appeared most frequently (19 times) among the herbal medicinal ingredients of CPMs. A total of 449 articles were included in the full-paper analysis ultimately, all of which were about 20 types of CPMs, and there were no related reports on the remaining five CPMs. Except about a quarter (25.39 %, 114/449) using CPMs alone, the remaining studies all involved the combination with oral hypoglycemics for T2DM. Biguanides are the most common drugs used in combination with CPMs (50.14 %, 168/335). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) is the most frequently reported outcomes in efficacy evaluation (82.41 %, 370/449).

CONCLUSION

There are a total of 25 types of CPMs currently available for T2DM patients. However, the volume of related evidence on these CPMs varies. It is necessary to standardize the combined use of CPMs and conventional medicine and select appropriate outcomes in future studies.

Effect of self-help interventions on psychological, glycemic, and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Self-help interventions are beneficial for patients with diabetes; however, related studies have reported conflicting results. To date, no review has examined the effect of self-help interventions on diabetes outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effects of self-help interventions on psychological, glycemic, and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Five databases-PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov-were searched from 1996, 1937, 1947, 1887, and 2000, respectively, to 2 June 2023. Studies that employed a randomized controlled trial design, enrolled adults with diabetes, implemented a self-help intervention as the main or an additional intervention, and reported the outcomes of interest were included. Studies providing self-help interventions to patients with gestational diabetes or pregnant women were excluded. The primary outcomes were diabetes distress, depression, and anxiety, and the secondary outcomes were glycemic and behavioral outcomes (self-management behavior, self-efficacy, and quality of life). Hedges' g and the associated 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model to obtain the pooled estimates of short-, mid-, and long-term effects of self-help interventions. Heterogeneity was explored using I2 and Q statistics, and moderator analysis was performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 17 eligible studies, 16 provided data for meta-analysis. We included 3083 patients with diabetes; the majority were women (61.95 %), and their average age was 55.13 years. Self-help interventions exerted significant short-term effects on diabetes distress (g = -0.363; 95 % CI = -0.554, -0.173), depression (g = -0.465; 95 % CI = -0.773, -0.156), anxiety (g = -0.295; 95 % CI = -0.523, -0.068), glycosylated hemoglobin level (g = -0.497; 95 % CI = -0.791, -0.167), self-efficacy (g = 0.629; 95 % CI = 0.060, 1.197), and quality of life (g = 0.413; 95 % CI = 0.104, 0.721; g = 0.182; 95 % CI = 0.031, 0.333; and g = 0.469; 95 % CI = 0.156, 0.783 for overall, physical, and mental domains, respectively). We also noted significant mid-term effects of self-help interventions on diabetes distress (g = -0.195; 95 % CI = -0.374, -0.016), self-management behavior (g = 0.305; 95 % CI = 0.155, 0.454), and overall quality of life (g = 0.562; 95 % CI = 0.315, 0.810). The certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low certainty for the measured outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-help interventions may have some positive effects on diabetes distress, anxiety, self-management behavior, and quality of life.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329905).

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

This meta-analysis demonstrated that self-help interventions might improve psychological and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes.

Current status and implementation strategies of patient education in core outcome set development

OBJECTIVE

Patient participation is essential for Core Outcome Set (COS) development studies. Patient education during participation may help patients better express their views in COS studies. This study aimed to investigate the current status of patient participation and the specified educational information in COS studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of COS development studies. Information on patient participation in COS research, and especially details of patient education, was analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 146 COS development studies were included in this review. Of these, 125 studies (85.6%) mentioned patient participation. Most studies did not provide explicit information on patient participation. Some studies mentioned recruiting patients, but ultimately, none of them responded. Six studies reported conducting patient education through workshops, creating patient forums, or providing videos and slides. However, these studies did not provide details on education. Twenty-three studies used the plain language to explain patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COS developers are increasingly focusing on patient participation. However, only a few COS studies have explicitly reported conducting measures related to patient education. Further patient education is necessary when they participate in the development of a new Core Outcome Set.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This article provides implementation strategies related to patient education for future COS development studies.

Awareness and experiences on core outcome set development and use amongst stakeholders from low- and middle- income countries: An online survey

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.

Physical exercise as treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes: a rapid review

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALY). Physical exercise is an effective non-pharmacological intervention to promote glycaemic control in T2DM. However, the optimal exercise parameters for glycemic control in individuals with T2DM remain unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the relationship between physical training variables - frequency, intensity, type, duration, volume, and progression - and glycemic control in individuals with T2DM.

Methods

A rapid systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed and LILACS databases. The PICOT strategy was employed to define the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies had to assess the impact of exercise parameters (frequency, intensity, type, duration, volume, and progression) on glycemic control indicators, primarily glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included in the review. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the PEDro scale (PROSPERO - CRD 42021262614).

Results

Out of 1188 papers initially identified, 18 reports met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 1,228 participants with T2DM (1086 in exercise groups) were included in the selected studies. Among these studies, 16 (88.9%) were RCTs and 2 (11.1%) were nRCTs. The age of participants ranged from 43.1 and 68.9 years, and the average intervention duration was 16.8 weeks. Data on adherence to the intervention, adverse events, detailed intervention protocol, and its impacts on glycaemic control, lipid profile, blood pressure, anthropometric measures, medication, body composition, and physical fitness are reported.

Conclusion

The evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of physical exercises as non-pharmacological interventions for glycemic control. Aerobic, resistance and combined training interventions were associated with reductions in HbA1c and fasting glucose. The diversity of the physical exercise intervention protocols investigated in the studies included in this review is an important limitation to generalizing evidence-based practice. The call for action is mandatory to implement large-scale education programs on the prevention of diabetes and public health policies aimed to include well-planned and supervised exercise programs as an essential part of the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier (CRD42021262614).

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Key Sub-Saharan African Languages to Promote Diversity: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Sub-Saharan Africa is a world region rich and diverse in cultures and languages; yet, it is also challenged with regard to resources that may facilitate the cultural adaptation or development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Systematic exclusion of patients' "voices," because of gaps in the availability of PROMs, may perpetuate health inequity. Hence, the objective is to describe the availability of PROMs in the non-English, sub-Saharan African languages.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify PROMs that had been translated, validated, or developed for use in 32 selected, non-English, sub-Saharan African languages pertaining to health outcomes. Four databases were searched (May 7, 2021), and additional articles were identified through reference screening and via corresponding authors. Data were extracted in terms of country, language, population, construct, and PROM characteristics (eg, number of items).

RESULTS

A total of 220 unique articles were included from 7451 records, leading to the identification of 126 unique PROMs. Most studies were conducted in either Ethiopia, Nigeria, or South Africa. As such, prevalent languages included Amharic, Yoruba, and non-English languages common to South Africa (eg, Setswana, Xhosa, and Zulu). No PROMs were identified in any of the languages for 27 sub-Saharan African countries or 10 of the 32 included languages.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps in the availability of PROMs across the non-English African languages included. Nevertheless, the PROMs that were identified largely align with core outcome sets relevant to the prevalent disease burden in this world region. Consensus-based priority setting may inform the most pertinent gaps to be addressed.

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes

PURPOSE

This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research.

METHODS

We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.

Association Between Physical Exercise Interventions Participation and Functional Capacity in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials

Background

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus increases with age, and people with type 2 diabetes are more affected by reductions in functional performance. Although exercise interventions are recommended for people with diabetes, it is relevant to assess the effects of different training modes on the available functional outcomes. Therefore, our purpose was to systematically assess the effect of different physical exercise modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes with an average age of 45 years or older on outcomes used to measure functional capacity.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials was conducted. Seven databases were searched from January 1987 to December 2021 (PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and in grey literature: Open Grey and Google Scholar). Eligible studies should last 8 weeks or longer, comparing structured exercise training and non-exercise control for one out of six pre-specified functional capacity outcomes (Timed Up and Go test, chair stands, walking performance, upper-limb muscle strength, lower-limb muscle strength, physical fitness parameter), in patients with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥ 45 years. The risk of bias was assessed with the Downs & Black checklist. Pooled mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model, followed by sensitivity and meta-regression analyses.

Results

Of 18,112 references retrieved, 29 trials (1557 patients) were included. Among these, 13 studies used aerobic training, 6 studies used combined training, 4 studies used resistance training, 3 studies had multiple intervention arms and 3 studies used other types of training. Exercise training was associated with an increase in functional capacity outcomes, as reflected by changes in 6-min walk test (n = 8) [51.6 m; 95% CI 7.6% to 95.6%; I² 92%], one-repetition maximum leg-press (n = 3) [18.0 kg; 95% CI 4.0% to 31.9%; I² 0%], and maximum oxygen consumption (VO_2max) (n = 20) [2.41 mL/kg·min; 95% CI 1.89% to 2.92%; I² 100%] compared with control groups. In sensitivity and subgroup analyses using VO_2max as outcome and stratified by type of study (randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials), duration of diabetes diagnosis, and sex, we observed overlapping confidence intervals. Meta-regression showed no association between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels and VO_2max [p = 0.34; I² 99.6%; R² = 2.6%]. In addition, the quality of the included studies was mostly low.

Conclusion

The results indicate that structured physical exercise programs might improve functional capacity in patients with type 2 diabetes, except for the upper-limb muscle strength. However, we could not identify potential effect predictors associated with directional summary estimates.

Trial registration This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020162467); date of registration: 12/15/2019. The review protocol is hosted at the Open Science Framework (OSF) (Preprint https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/kpg2m).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-022-00422-1.

Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important tools to assess outcomes relevant to patients, with Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) as an important construct to be measured. Many different HRQOL PROMs are used in the type 2 diabetes field, however a complete overview of these PROMs is currently lacking. We therefore aimed to systematically describe and classify the content of all PROMs that have specifically been developed or validated to measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE until 31 December 2021. Studies on the development or validation of a PROM measuring HRQOL, or aspects of HRQOL, in people with type 2 diabetes were included. Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two independent researchers and data extraction was performed independently by one of the researchers. Data were extracted on language in which the PROM was developed, target population, construct(s) being measured, names of (sub)scales and number of items per (sub)scale. In addition, all PROMs and subscales were classified according to specific aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model (symptom status, functional status, general health perceptions) to aid researchers in PROM selection. In total 220 studies were identified that developed or validated PROMs that measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. Of the 116 unique HRQOL PROMs, 91 (of the subscales) measured symptom status, 60 measured functional status and 26 measured general health perceptions. In addition, 16 of the PROMs (subscales) measured global quality of life. 61 of the 116 PROMs (subscales) also include characteristics of the individual (e.g. aspects of personality, coping) or environment (e.g. social or financial support) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs, e.g. measure of a patient's perception of their personal experience of the healthcare they have received, e.g. treatment satisfaction), which are not part of the HRQOL construct. Only 9 of the 116 PROMs measure all aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model. Finally, 8 of the 116 PROMs stating to measure HRQOL, measured no HRQOL construct. In conclusion, a large number of PROMs are available for people with type 2 diabetes, which intend to measure (aspects of) HRQOL. These PROMs measure a large variety of (sub)constructs, which are not all HRQOL constructs, with a small amount of PROMs not measuring HRQOL at all. There is a need for consensus on which aspects of HRQOL should be measured in people with type 2 diabetes and which PROMs to use in research and daily practice. PROSPERO: CRD42017071012. COMET database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956 .

Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Developed for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to systematically evaluate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) specifically developed to measure (aspects of) health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review was performed in PubMed and Embase of PROMs measuring perceived symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, and that were validated to at least some extent. Content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) was evaluated using COSMIN methodology.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 54 (different versions of) PROMs, containing 150 subscales. We found evidence for sufficient content validity for only 41/150 (27%) (subscales of) PROMs. The quality of evidence was generally very low. We found 66 out of 150 (44%) (subscales of) PROMs with evidence for either insufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, or insufficient comprehensibility. For measuring diabetes-specific symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, we identified one to 11 (subscales of) PROMs with sufficient content validity, although quality of the evidence was generally low. For measuring depressive symptoms, no PROM with sufficient content validity was identified. For each aspect of HRQL, we found at least one PROM with sufficient content validity, except for depressive symptoms. The quality of the evidence was mostly very low.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes

We aimed to systematically assess the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning, one of the core outcomes, in adults with type 2 diabetes.We performed a systematic literature search for PROMs or subscales measuring physical function that were validated to at least some extent in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Measurement properties were evaluated according to the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.In total 21 articles were included, describing 12 versions of 7 unique diabetes-specific PROMs or subscales measuring physical functioning. In general, there were few high-quality studies on measurement properties of PROMs measuring physical functioning in adults with type 2 diabetes. The Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF) and the Impact of Weight on Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (IWADL) were most extensively evaluated. Both had sufficient ratings for aspects of content validity, although with mostly very low-quality evidence. Sufficient ratings for structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability were also found for both instruments, but responsiveness was rated inconsistent for both instruments. The other PROMs or subscales often had insufficient aspects of content validity, or their unidimensionality could not be confirmed.This systematic review showed that the Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the DFS-SF and the IWADL could be used to measure physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes in research or clinical practice, while keeping the limitations of these instruments in mind. The measurement properties that have not been evaluated extensively for these PROMs should be evaluated in future studies.The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database, number CRD42021234890.

Rating the importance of outcomes from diabetes trials. A survey of patients' and doctors' opinions

Purpose

To investigate and compare how patients with diabetes mellitus and doctors rate the importance of outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials. Secondly, to compare the ratings of outcomes between patients with low and high education.

Methods

Using a pre-piloted questionnaire, patients with diabetes and doctors working with diabetes were asked to rate the importance of 36 different outcomes commonly used in trials assessing intervention effects in patients with diabetes. The respondents were asked to rate individual outcomes as being either critical, of major importance, of moderate importance, or of minor importance.

Results

The study population consisted of 139 patients with a mean age of 56.6 years and an average duration of diabetes for 13.6 years and 45 doctors with a mean time of practice of 19.6 years. There was no difference between patients' and doctors' rating of risk of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention (all p-values > 0.34). Non-fatal stroke, admission for heart failure or angina was perceived more severely by patients compared to doctors (all p-values < 0.03). Patients rated risk of foot-ulcers, amputations and quality of life as more important compared to doctors (p-values < 0.01).

Conclusion

The current study suggest that patients and doctors weigh some diabetic outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials differently. These findings call for more studies on patient reported outcomes and patient education for improved personal care.

Highlights

• We performed this study to assess how patients and practicing physicians rate the importance of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials.• We found that patients and doctors rate the importance of some outcomes used in clinical diabetes trials differently.• These findings suggest that shared decision making is pivotal when taking clinical decisions and that future diabetes studies incorporate end points relevant to both patients and clinicians and do not combine end points which are not equally important.

Challenges in Measuring What Matters to Patients With Diabetes. Comment on "Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review"

Collapse

Development of a core outcome set for multimorbidity trials in low/middle-income countries (COSMOS): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

'Multimorbidity' describes the presence of two or more long-term conditions, which can include communicable, non-communicable diseases, and mental disorders. The rising global burden from multimorbidity is well documented, but trial evidence for effective interventions in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. Selection of appropriate outcomes is fundamental to trial design to ensure cross-study comparability, but there is currently no agreement on a core outcome set (COS) to include in trials investigating multimorbidity specifically in LMICs. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two COSs for trials of interventions to prevent and treat multimorbidity in LMIC settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following methods recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, the development of these two COSs will occur in parallel in three stages: (1) generation of a long list of potential outcomes for inclusion; (2) two-round online Delphi surveys and (3) consensus meetings. First, to generate an initial list of outcomes, we will conduct a systematic review of multimorbidity intervention and prevention trials and interviews with people living with multimorbidity and their caregivers in LMICs. Outcomes will be classified using an outcome taxonomy. Two-round Delphi surveys will be used to elicit importance scores for these outcomes from people living with multimorbidity, caregivers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and researchers in LMICs. Finally, consensus meetings including all of these stakeholders will be held to agree outcomes for inclusion in the two COSs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Research Governance Committee of the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK (HSRGC/2020/409/D:COSMOS). Each participating country/research group will obtain local ethics board approval. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. We will disseminate findings through peer-reviewed open access publications, and presentations at global conferences selected to reach a wide range of LMIC stakeholders.

PROSPERO REGISTATION NUMBER

CRD42020197293.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Developing and Evaluating Behaviour Change Interventions for People with Younger-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: Lessons and Recommendations from Existing Programmes

People with younger-onset type 2 diabetes (YOT2D, diagnosis before 40 years of age) are at higher risk of morbidity and premature mortality compared with their similar-age type 1 diabetes and later-onset type 2 diabetes peers. Despite recommendations for targeted, behavioural, and psychosocial approaches to optimising health outcomes, there are few such interventions for this group. Furthermore, evaluations of health behaviour change interventions targeting this priority population have proven challenging to complete. Despite this, there is little guidance for future behavioural programme developers. The aims of this paper are to synthesise lessons learned and recommendations from published evaluations of YOT2D-focused health behaviour change interventions, and illustrate challenges and solutions using case studies from our own experience. A rapid review of the literature identified 11 trials of behavioural interventions for YOT2D (5 randomised controlled trials, 6 pre/post studies). We sourced related needs assessment and development papers to describe the life course of each programme. We identified two development and two evaluation-related themes impacting successful trial execution. Development recommendations include ensuring appropriate adaptation of existing interventions to the unique challenges and characteristics of the target group, use of theory or theoretical frameworks throughout, and involvement of the priority population and key stakeholders from inception. Evaluation recommendations include planning for meaningful evaluation and development of age-appropriate Core Outcomes Sets. Future programme developers would benefit from closer attention to intervention development guidelines and a focus on supporting those with YOT2D to achieve behaviour change and diabetes self-management goals, ahead of change to biomedical outcomes.

Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to describe differences or similarities in the scope, participant characteristics and methods used in core outcome sets (COS) development when only participants from high-income countries (HICs) were involved compared with when participants from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were also involved.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Annual Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials systematic reviews of COS which are updated based on SCOPUS and MEDLINE, searches. The latest systematic review included studies published up to the end of 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included studies reporting development of a COS for use in research regardless of age, health condition or setting. Studies reporting the development of a COS for patient-reported outcomes or adverse events or complications were also included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted in relation to scope of the COS study, participant categories and the methods used in outcome selection.

RESULTS

Studies describing 370 COS were identified in the database. Of these, 75 (20%) included participants from LMICs. Only four COS were initiated from an LMIC setting. More than half of COS with LMIC participants were developed in the last 5 years. Cancer and rheumatology were the dominant disease domains. Overall, over 259 (70%) of COS explicitly reported including clinical experts; this was higher where LMIC participants were also included 340 (92%). Most LMIC participants were from China, Brazil and South Africa. Mixed methods for consensus building were used across the two settings.

CONCLUSION

Progress has been made in including LMIC participants in the development of COS, however, there is a need to explore how to enable initiation of COS development from a range of LMIC settings, how to ensure prioritisation of COS that better reflects the burden of disease in these contexts and how to improve public participation from LMICs.

Standardised Outcome Reporting for the Nutrition Management of Complex Chronic Disease: A Rapid Review

Individuals with coexisting chronic diseases or with complex chronic disease are among the most challenging and costly patients to treat, placing a growing demand on healthcare systems. Recommending effective treatments, including nutrition interventions, relies on standardised outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to enable data synthesis. This rapid review sought to determine how the scope and consistency of the outcomes reported by RCTs investigating nutrition interventions for the management of complex chronic disease compared to what is recommended by the core outcome sets (COS) for individual disease states. Peer-reviewed RCTs published between January 2010 and July 2020 were systematically sourced from PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and COS were sourced from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. A total of 45 RCTs (43 studies) and 7 COS were identified. Outcomes were extracted from both the RCTs and COS and were organised using COMET Taxonomy Core Areas. A total of 66 outcomes and 439 outcome measures were reported by the RCTs. The RCTs demonstrated extensive outcome heterogeneity, with only five outcomes (5/66, 8%) being reported with relative consistency (cited by ≥50% of publications). Furthermore, the scope of the outcomes reported by studies was limited, with a notable paucity of patient-reported outcomes. Poor agreement (25%) was observed between the outcomes reported in the RCTs and those recommended by the COS. This review urges greater uptake of the existing COS and the development of a COS for complex chronic disease to be considered so that evidence can be better synthesised regarding effective nutrition interventions.

The participatory development of a national core set of person-centred diabetes outcome constructs for use in routine diabetes care across healthcare sectors

BACKGROUND

This study sought to utilise participatory research methods to identify the perspectives of people with diabetes regarding which diabetes outcomes were most important to them. These findings were then used to support an expert working group representing multiple health sectors and healthcare disciplines and people with diabetes to establish a core set of patient-important outcome constructs for use in routine diabetes care.

METHODS

26 people with diabetes and family members were recruited through purposive sampling to participate in interviews, focus groups, voting and plenary activities in order to be part of identifying outcome constructs. Content and qualitative analysis methods were used with literature reviews to inform a national multi-stakeholder consensus process for a core set of person-centred diabetes outcome constructs to be used in routine diabetes care across health care settings.

RESULTS

21 people with diabetes and 5 family members representing type 1 and 2 diabetes and a range of age groups, treatment regimens and disease burden identified the following patient-reported outcome constructs as an important supplement to clinical indicators for outcome assessment in routine diabetes care: self-rated health, psychological well-being, diabetes related emotional distress and quality of life, symptom distress, treatment burden, blood sugar regulation and hypoglycemia burden, confidence in self-management and confidence in access to person-centred care and support. Consensus was reached by a national multi-stakeholder expert group to adopt measures of these constructs as a national core diabetes outcome set for use in routine value-based diabetes care.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that patient-reported outcome (PRO) constructs and clinical indicators are needed in core diabetes outcome sets to evaluate outcomes of diabetes care which reflect key needs and priorities of people with diabetes. The incorporation of patient-reported outcome constructs should be considered complementary to clinical indicators in multi-stakeholder value-based health care strategies. We found participatory research methods were useful in facilitating the identification of a core prioritised set of diabetes outcome constructs for routine value-based diabetes care. The use of our method for involving patients may be useful for similar efforts in other disease areas aimed at defining suitable outcomes of person-centred value-based care. Future research should focus on developing acceptable and psychometrically valid measurement instruments to evaluate these outcome constructs as part of routine diabetes care.

Representation of published core outcome sets for research in regulatory guidance: protocol

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS.

Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Lifestyle Interventions to Improve Glycemic Control in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Living in Low-and-Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

Alongside glucose lowering therapy, clinical guidelines recommend lifestyle interventions as cornerstone in the care of people living with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). There is a specific need for an up-to-date review assessing the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for people with T2DM living in low-and-middle income countries (MICs). Four electronic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1990 and 2020. T2DM, lifestyle interventions, LMICs and their synonyms were used as search terms. Data codebooks were developed and data were extracted. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using random effects models to calculate mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 1284 articles identified, 30 RCTs (n = 16,670 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis revealed significant improvement in HBA1c (MD −0.63; CI: −0.86, −0.40), FBG (SMD −0.35; CI: −0.54, −0.16) and BMI (MD −0.5; CI: −0.8, −0.2). In terms of intervention characteristics, those that included promoted self-management using multiple education components (e.g., diet, physical activity, medication adherence, smoking cessation) and were delivered by healthcare professionals in a hospital/clinic setting were deemed most effective. However, when interpreting these results, it is important to consider that most included studies were evaluated as being of low quality and there was a significant amount of intervention characteristics heterogeneity. There is a need for further well-designed studies to inform the evidence base on which lifestyle interventions are most effective for glycemic control in adults with T2DM living in LMICs.

Representation of published core outcome sets for research in regulatory guidance: protocol

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Representation of published core outcome sets for research in regulatory guidance: protocol

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents which match in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in EMA and FDA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. If the findings of this study reveal a lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas, we will invite feedback from FDA and EMA and will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

Application of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies in Assessing Mobile-Delivered Technologies for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is a growing role of digital health technologies (DHTs) in the management of chronic health conditions, specifically type 2 diabetes. It is increasingly important that health technologies meet the evidence standards for health care settings. In 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs. This provides guidance for evaluating the effectiveness and economic value of DHTs in health care settings in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess whether scientific articles on DHTs for the self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus report the evidence suggested for implementation in clinical practice, as described in the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of published articles and searched 5 databases to identify systematic reviews and primary studies of mobile device-delivered DHTs that provide self-management support for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The evidence reported within articles was assessed against standards described in the NICE framework.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 715 systematic reviews, of which, 45 were relevant and together included 59 eligible primary studies. Within these, there were 39 unique technologies. Using the NICE framework, 13 technologies met best practice standards, 3 met minimum standards only, and 23 technologies did not meet minimum standards.

CONCLUSIONS

On the assessment of peer-reviewed publications, over half of the identified DHTs did not appear to meet the minimum evidence standards recommended by the NICE framework. The most common reasons for studies of DHTs not meeting these evidence standards included the absence of a comparator group, no previous justification of sample size, no measurable improvement in condition-related outcomes, and a lack of statistical data analysis. This report provides information that will enable researchers and digital health developers to address these limitations when designing, delivering, and reporting digital health technology research in the future.

Measuring Health Outcomes in HIV: Time to Bring in the Patient Experience

Introduction

Over the past decade, the global response to HIV has led to a reduction in the number of new infections, and a decrease in associated mortality. Yet, the number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) is high, with an estimated 38 million infected worldwide. As HIV shifts from being an acute terminal illness to a chronic condition, evaluating programmatic responses to HIV with sole reliance on biological markers (such as viral load or CD4 cell count) as proxies for patient health may no longer be suitable. HIV affects the lives of those infected in myriad ways which should be reflected in programme evaluations by measuring health-related quality of life, in addition to biomarkers.

Discussion

In this commentary we argue that there is a pressing need to review how a "good" health outcome is defined and measured in light of care systems moving towards value-based frameworks that measure value in terms of the actual health outcomes achieved (rather than processes of care), global response shifting to providing long-term care for PLHIV in the community, and integrating HIV as part of universal health coverage plans. Efforts should be directed towards validating generic and disease specific patient-reported measures of PLHIV, to identify the most suitable tools. Such efforts will ensure that patient experience is appropriately captured, especially to be used in programme or economic evaluations.

Conclusions

It is only by recognising and measuring the full range of health, mental and social outcomes related to the disease that the health status of PLHIV can be fully understood.

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 CRD42018106831.

Core outcome sets through the healthcare ecosystem: the case of type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

It is increasingly accepted that insufficient attention has been given to the patient health outcomes that are important to measure in comparative effectiveness research that will inform decision-making. The relationship between outcomes chosen for comparative effectiveness research, outcomes used in decision-making in routine care, and outcome data recorded in electronic health records (EHR) is also poorly understood. The COMET Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 3 Apr 2020) supports and encourages the development and use of 'core outcome sets' (COS), which represent the minimum set of patient health outcomes that should be measured and reported for a specific condition. There is growing interest in identifying how COS might fit into the different stages of the healthcare research and delivery ecosystem, and whether inclusion in the EHR might facilitate this.

METHODS

We sought to determine the degree of overlap between outcomes within COS for research and routine care, EMA, FDA and NICE guidelines, NICE quality statements/indicators, EHR and a point-of-care randomised clinical trial, using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a case study.

RESULTS

There is substantial agreement about important patient outcomes for T2D for research and healthcare, with associated coverage within the UK general practice EHR.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study has demonstrated the potential for efficient research and value-based healthcare when the EHR can include COS for both research and care, where the COS comprises outcomes of importance to all relevant stakeholders. However, this concordance may not hold more generally, as the focus on patient-centred outcomes may well be greater in T2D than in other conditions. Work is ongoing to examine other clinical areas, in order to highlight any current inefficiencies when health outcomes in research and healthcare do not agree with core outcomes identified by patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders.