Optimising the dosing of medicines for neonates and children remains a challenge. The importance of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) research is recognised both in medicines regulation ...and paediatric clinical pharmacology, yet there remain barriers to undertaking high-quality PK and PD studies. While these studies are essential in understanding the dose–concentration–effect relationship and should underpin dosing recommendations, this review examines how challenges affecting the design and conduct of paediatric pharmacological studies can be overcome using targeted pharmacometric strategies. Model-based approaches confer benefits at all stages of the drug life-cycle, from identifying the first dose to be used in children, to clinical trial design, and optimising the dosing regimens of older, off-patent medications. To benefit patients, strategies to ensure that new PK, PD and trial data are incorporated into evidence-based dosing recommendations are needed. This review summarises practical strategies to address current challenges, particularly the use of model-based (pharmacometric) approaches in study design and analysis. Recommendations for practice and directions for future paediatric pharmacological research are given, based on current literature and our joint international experience. Success of PK research in children requires a robust infrastructure, with sustainable funding mechanisms at its core, supported by political and regulatory initiatives, and international collaborations. There is a unique opportunity to advance paediatric medicines research at an unprecedented pace, bringing the age of evidence-based paediatric pharmacotherapy into sight.
Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes ...limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.
We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.
In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.
Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.
Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials ...persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).
The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.
SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.
The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).
...the comparison of treatment effects between adults and children was across and not within trials. ...the results could be explained by residual confounding, despite the meta-regression done by the ...authors, arising from differences in disease severity, drug dosages, outcome measures, and diagnostic categories. Standards for the design and reporting of pediatric trials would contribute to the development of a methodologically strong and relevant evidence base for pediatric care. ...adequate reporting will assist end-users in assessing the relevance and applicability of a study's findings (http://www.equator-network.org/).
Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health ...Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.
The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.
The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.
Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial ...publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.
RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.
Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.
Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.
Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is a lysosomal storage disorder that results in the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans causing progressive multi-organ dysfunction. Its clinical spectrum is very ...broad and varies from the severe Hurler phenotype (MPS I-H) which is characterized by early and progressive central nervous system (CNS) involvement to the attenuated Scheie phenotype (MPS I-S) with no CNS involvement. Indication, optimal timing, safety and efficacy of the two available treatment options for MPS I, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), are subject to continuing debate. A European consensus procedure was organized to reach consensus about the use of these two treatment strategies.
A panel of specialists, including 8 specialists for metabolic disorders and 7 bone marrow transplant physicians, all with acknowledged expertise in MPS I, participated in a modified Delphi process to develop consensus-based statements on MPS I treatment. Fifteen MPS I case histories were used to initiate the discussion and to anchor decisions around either treatment mode. Before and at the meeting all experts gave their opinion on the cases (YES/NO transplantation) and reasons for their decisions were collected. A set of draft statements on MPS I treatment options composed by a planning committee were discussed and revised during the meeting until full consensus.
Full consensus was reached on several important issues, including the following: 1) The preferred treatment for patients with MPS I-H diagnosed before age 2.5 yrs is HSCT; 2) In individual patients with an intermediate phenotype HSCT may be considered if there is a suitable donor. However, there are no data on efficacy of HSCT in patients with this phenotype; 3) All MPS I patients including those who have not been transplanted or whose graft has failed may benefit significantly from ERT; 4) ERT should be started at diagnosis and may be of value in patients awaiting HSCT.
This multidisciplinary consensus procedure yielded consensus on the main issues related to therapeutic choices and research for MPS I. This is an important step towards an international, collaborative approach, the only way to obtain useful evidence in rare diseases.
Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the ...selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (greater than or equal to 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.
Bayesian methods are increasing in popularity in clinical research. The design of Bayesian clinical trials requires a prior distribution, which can be elicited from experts. In diseases with ...international differences in management, the elicitation exercise should recruit internationally, making a face-to-face elicitation session expensive and more logistically challenging. Thus, we used a remote, real-time elicitation exercise to construct prior distributions. These elicited distributions were then used to determine the sample size of the Bronchiolitis in Infants with Placebo Versus Epinephrine and Dexamethasone (BIPED) study, an international randomised controlled trial in the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN). The BIPED study aims to determine whether the combination of epinephrine and dexamethasone, compared to placebo, is effective in reducing hospital admission for infants presenting with bronchiolitis to the emergency department.
We developed a Web-based tool to support the elicitation of the probability of hospitalisation for infants with bronchiolitis. Experts participated in online workshops to specify their individual prior distributions, which were aggregated using the equal-weighted linear pooling method. Experts were then invited to provide their comments on the aggregated distribution. The average length criterion determined the BIPED sample size.
Fifteen paediatric emergency medicine clinicians from Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand participated in three workshops to provide their elicited prior distributions. The mean elicited probability of admission for infants with bronchiolitis was slightly lower for those receiving epinephrine and dexamethasone compared to supportive care in the aggregate distribution. There were substantial differences in the individual beliefs but limited differences between North America and Australasia. From this aggregate distribution, a sample size of 410 patients per arm results in an average 95% credible interval length of less than 9% and a relative predictive power of 90%.
Remote, real-time expert elicitation is a feasible, useful and practical tool to determine a prior distribution for international randomised controlled trials. Bayesian methods can then determine the trial sample size using these elicited prior distributions. The ease and low cost of remote expert elicitation mean that this approach is suitable for future international randomised controlled trials.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03567473.
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most lethal disease of the gastrointestinal tract of preterm infants. New and existing management strategies need clinical evaluation. Large heterogeneity ...exists in the selection, measurement, and reporting of outcome measures in NEC intervention studies. This hampers meta-analyses and the development of evidence-based management guidelines. We aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for NEC that includes the most relevant outcomes for patients and physicians, from moment of diagnosis into adulthood. This COS is designed for use in NEC treatment trials, in infants with confirmed NEC.
This study is designed according to COS-STAD (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development) recommendations and the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative Handbook. We obtained a waiver from the Ethics Review Board and prospectively registered this study with COMET (Study 1920). We will approach 125 clinicians and/or researchers from low-middle and high-income countries based on their scientific output (using SCIVAL, a bibliometric tool). Patients and parents will be approached through local patient organisations. Participants will be separated into three panels, to assess differences in priorities between former patients and parents (1. lay panel), clinicians and researchers involved in the neonatal period (2. neonatal panel) and after the neonatal period (3. post-neonatal panel). They will be presented with outcomes currently used in NEC research, identified through a systematic review, in a Delphi process. Eligible outcome domains are also identified from the patients and parents' perspectives. Using a consensus process, including three online Delphi rounds and a final face-to-face consensus meeting, the COS will be finalised and include outcomes deemed essential to all stakeholders: health care professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for reporting (COS-STAR) statement.
Development of an international COS will help to improve homogeneity of outcome measure reporting in NEC, will enable adequate and efficient comparison of treatment strategies, and will help the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results. This will contribute to high-quality evidence regarding the best treatment strategy for NEC in preterm infants.
PDF
