Robust time-to-event endpoint definitions are crucial for the assessment of treatment effect and the clinical value of trial interventions. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group investigated endpoint use in phase 3 trials and trials considered potentially practice-changing published between 2008 and 2021 in the curative-intent setting for patients with mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Of the 92 trials reviewed, we show that all core components of endpoint reporting were heterogeneous, including definitions of common terms, such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Our report highlights the urgent need for harmonisation of fundamental components of clinical trial endpoints and the engagement of all stakeholders to ensure the transparent reporting of endpoint details.

Transparent and precise endpoint definitions are a crucial aspect of clinical trial conduct and reporting, and are used to communicate the benefit of an intervention. Previous studies have identified inconsistencies in endpoint definitions across oncological clinical trials. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group assessed endpoint definitions from phase 3 trials or trials considered practice-changing for patients with recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, published between 2008 and 2021. We identify considerable and global heterogeneity in endpoint definitions, which undermines the interpretation of results and development of future studies. We show how fundamental components of even incontrovertible endpoints such as overall survival vary widely, highlighting an urgent need for increased rigour in reporting and harmonisation of endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved.
METHODS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen\'s University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely.
BACKGROUND: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Ketogenic diet therapy (KDT) can result in benefits (seizure-related and non-seizure-related) for children with drug-resistant epilepsy. However, clinical trials report a wide range of outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult, and do not adequately reflect parent views on important outcomes for their child. To address this, we established the first international parent, health professional, and researcher consensus to develop a core outcome set, guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative (COMET registration #1116).
Ethical approval was granted (London-Surrey REC19/LO/1680). A scoping review and interviews with parents identified a comprehensive list of potentially important outcomes, followed by a two-round online Delphi survey of parents and health professionals to prioritize outcomes of importance for inclusion in a core outcome set. This informed a stakeholder consensus meeting and consultation process to finalize the core outcome set.
In total, 97 outcomes were identified; 90 from the scoping review and seven from parent interviews. These were rationalized to 77 by the study advisory group, then rated in the first Delphi round by 49 parents and 96 health professionals, who suggested 12 new outcomes for rating in Round 2. Sixty-six percent of participants (30 parents and 66 professionals) completed Round 2, where 22 outcomes met criteria for inclusion. In the consensus meeting (nine parents and 13 professionals), 27 undecided outcomes were discussed and scored; one further outcome reached consensus for inclusion. After consultation and ratification, 14 outcomes across five domains were included in the core outcome set.
A core outcome set for childhood epilepsy treated with KDT has been developed, incorporating the views of international parents and professionals. Implementation in research and clinical settings will standardize outcome selection and reporting, facilitate data synthesis, and ultimately enhance the relevance of outcomes to parents, researchers, and health professionals.

High-quality evidence guiding optimal transfusion and other supportive therapies to reduce bleeding is needed to improve outcomes for patients with either severe bleeding or hemostatic disorders that are associated with poor outcomes. Alongside challenges in performing high-quality clinical trials in patient populations who are at risk of bleeding or who are actively bleeding, the interpretation of research evaluating hemostatic agents has been limited by inconsistency in the choice of primary trial outcomes. This lack of standardization of primary endpoints or outcomes decreases the ability of clinicians to assess the validity of endpoints and compare research results across studies, impairs meta-analytic efforts, and, ultimately, delays the translation of research results into clinical practice. To address this challenge, an international panel of experts was convened by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense on September 23 and 24, 2019, to develop expert opinion, consensus-based recommendations for primary clinical trial outcomes for pivotal trials in pediatric and adult patients with six categories in various clinical settings. This publication documents the conference proceedings from the workshop funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense that consolidated expert opinion regarding clinically meaningful outcomes across a wide range of disciplines to provide guidance for outcomes of future trials of hemostatic products and agents for patients with active bleeding.

Treatments for long-term control of asthma have improved and include a promising but expensive class of biologic therapies. However, the clinical trials evaluating these and other novel treatments have used a variety of different outcomes to evaluate efficacy. The evolution of asthma care calls for a re-examination of outcomes that are most important to patients and other stakeholders.
To develop a core set of outcomes to be measured in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.
We used a robust and in-depth multistakeholder consensus process bringing together patients, clinicians, regulators, payers, health technology assessors, researchers, and product developers to reach consensus on outcomes. We used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus, an approach adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative aligned with contemporary methodological standards for core outcome set development.
The following outcomes were included in the final core set: severe asthma exacerbation, change in asthma control, asthma-specific or severe asthma-specific quality of life, asthma-specific hospital stay (ie, >24-hour stays at any level of care) or admission, and asthma-specific emergency department visit.
These 5 outcomes represent a minimum set of core outcomes for use in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in moderate-to-severe asthma. Consistent collection of these outcomes as minimum, independent of whether additional heterogeneous primary or secondary outcomes are included, will allow for meaningful comparisons of the effect of asthma therapies across clinical trials.

Recent trials in liver machine perfusion (MP) have revealed unique challenges beyond those seen in most clinical studies. Correct trial design and interpretation of data are essential to avoid drawing conclusions that may compromise patient safety and increase costs.
The International Liver Transplantation Society, through the Special Interest Group \"DCD, Preservation and Machine Perfusion,\" established a working group to write consensus statements and guidelines on how future clinical trials in liver perfusion should be designed, with particular focus on relevant clinical endpoints and how different techniques of liver perfusion should be compared. Protocols, abstracts, and full published papers of clinical trials using liver MP were reviewed. The use of a simplified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group (GRADE) system was attempted to assess the level of evidence. The working group presented its conclusions at the International Liver Transplantation Society consensus conference \"DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion\" held in Venice, Italy, on January 31, 2020.
Twelve recommendations were proposed with the main conclusions that clinical trials investigating the effect of MP in liver transplantation should (1) make the protocol publicly available before the start of the trial, (2) be adequately powered, and (3) carefully consider timing of randomization in function of the primary outcome.
There are issues with using accepted primary outcomes of liver transplantation trials in the context of MP trials, and no ideal endpoint could be defined by the working group. The setup of an international registry was considered vital by the working group.

Over the past 2 decades, chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention has developed into its own subspecialty of interventional cardiology. Dedicated terminology, techniques, devices, courses, and training programs have enabled progressive advancements. However, only a few randomized trials have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, several published observational studies have shown conflicting data. Part of the paucity of clinical data stems from the fact that prior studies have been suboptimally designed and performed. The absence of standardized end points and the discrepancy in definitions also prevent consistency and uniform interpretability of reported results in CTO intervention. To standardize the field, we therefore assembled a broad consortium comprising academicians, practicing physicians, researchers, medical society representatives, and regulators (US Food and Drug Administration) to develop methods, end points, biomarkers, parameters, data, materials, processes, procedures, evaluations, tools, and techniques for CTO interventions. This article summarizes the effort and is organized into 3 sections: key elements and procedural definitions, end point definitions, and clinical trial design principles. The Chronic Total Occlusion Academic Research Consortium is a first step toward improved comparability and interpretability of study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention evidence.

BACKGROUND: A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery.
METHODS: Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences.
CONCLUSIONS: This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade.
BACKGROUND: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1579.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), encompassing Crohn\'s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic and disabling disorders. Prospective disease-modification trials to prevent disease progression are eagerly awaited. However, disease progression is not clearly defined. The objective of the Selecting End PoInts foR Disease-ModIfication Trials (SPIRIT) initiative was to achieve international expert consensus on the endpoints to be used in future IBD-disease modification trials.
This initiative under the auspices of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD) began with a systematic literature search to evaluate the current evidence on the definition of disease progression in IBD. On October 22, 2019, a consensus meeting took place during the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) Congress in Barcelona, during which predefined proposed statements were discussed in a plenary session and voted on anonymously. Agreement was defined as at least 75% of participants voting for any one statement.
The group agreed that the ultimate therapeutic goal in both CD and UC is to prevent disease impact on patient\'s life (health-related quality of life, disability, fecal incontinence), midterm complications (encompass bowel damage in CD, IBD-related surgery and hospitalizations, disease extension in UC, extraintestinal manifestations, permanent stoma, short bowel syndrome), and long-term complications (gastrointestinal and extraintestinal dysplasia or cancer, mortality).
Recommendations on which goals to achieve in disease-modification trials for preventing disease progression in patients with IBD are proposed by the SPIRIT consensus. However, these recommendations will require validation in actual clinical studies before implementation in disease-modification trials.