14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation

      research-article
      , MPH, PhD 1 , 2 , , MD 3 , , MD, MSc 4 , , MD 5 , , MBBS, FRCS, MD, FRCPEd 6 , , MD (Hons) 7 , , MD, MSCE 8 , 9 , , MD, PhD 10 , , BM, ChB, DM, PhD 11 , , MBBS, PhD 1 , 2 , 12 , , BMChB, MMed, PhD 1 , 2 , , PG Dip 13 , 14 , , MD, PhD 15 , , MD, PhD 15 , , MBBS, MRCP, LMCC, FRCPC 16 , , MD, PhD 17 , , MD 18 , , MD, ScD 19 , , BSocSc 1 , 2 , , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , 20 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , MD, FRCP 12
      (Collab)
      Transplantation Direct
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Although advances in treatment have dramatically improved short-term graft survival and acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, long-term graft outcomes have not substantially improved. Transplant recipients also have a considerably increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection, which all contribute to appreciable morbidity and premature mortality. Many trials in kidney transplantation are short-term, frequently use unvalidated surrogate endpoints, outcomes of uncertain relevance to patients and clinicians, and do not consistently measure and report key outcomes like death, graft loss, graft function, and adverse effects of therapy. This diminishes the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions that require individual-level multiple tradeoffs between graft survival and the risk of side effects, adverse events, and mortality. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation initiative aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders.

          Methods

          This will include a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomized trials, a Delphi survey with an international multistakeholder panel (patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, members from industry) to develop a consensus-based prioritized list of outcome domains and a consensus workshop to review and finalize the core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation.

          Conclusions

          Developing and implementing a core outcome set to be reported, at a minimum, in all kidney transplantation trials will improve the transparency, quality, and relevance of research; to enable kidney transplant recipients and their clinicians to make better-informed treatment decisions for improved patient outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider

          The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare directly the effects of different interventions in ways that minimize bias. If the findings are to influence policy and practice then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set, which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the development of core outcome sets. Key issues to consider in the development of a core outcome set include its scope, the stakeholder groups to involve, choice of consensus method and the achievement of a consensus.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term renal allograft survival in the United States: a critical reappraisal.

            Renal allograft survival has increased tremendously over past decades; this has been mostly attributed to improvements in first-year survival. This report describes the evolution of renal allograft survival in the United States where a total of 252 910 patients received a single-organ kidney transplant between 1989 and 2009. Half-lives were obtained from the Kaplan-Meier and Cox models. Graft half-life for deceased-donor transplants was 6.6 years in 1989, increased to 8 years in 1995, then after the year 2000 further increased to 8.8 years by 2005. More significant improvements were made in higher risk transplants like ECD recipients where the half-lives increased from 3 years in 1989 to 6.4 years in 2005. In low-risk populations like living-donor-recipients half-life did not change with 11.4 years in 1989 and 11.9 years in 2005. First-year attrition rates show dramatic improvements across all subgroups; however, attrition rates beyond the first year show only small improvements and are somewhat more evident in black recipients. The significant progress that has occurred over the last two decades in renal transplantation is mostly driven by improvements in short-term graft survival but long-term attrition is slowly improving and could lead to bigger advances in the future. ©2010 The Authors Journal compilation©2010 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set.

              The increase in annual global investment in biomedical research--reaching US$240 billion in 2010--has resulted in important health dividends for patients and the public. However, much research does not lead to worthwhile achievements, partly because some studies are done to improve understanding of basic mechanisms that might not have relevance for human health. Additionally, good research ideas often do not yield the anticipated results. As long as the way in which these ideas are prioritised for research is transparent and warranted, these disappointments should not be deemed wasteful; they are simply an inevitable feature of the way science works. However, some sources of waste cannot be justified. In this report, we discuss how avoidable waste can be considered when research priorities are set. We have four recommendations. First, ways to improve the yield from basic research should be investigated. Second, the transparency of processes by which funders prioritise important uncertainties should be increased, making clear how they take account of the needs of potential users of research. Third, investment in additional research should always be preceded by systematic assessment of existing evidence. Fourth, sources of information about research that is in progress should be strengthened and developed and used by researchers. Research funders have primary responsibility for reductions in waste resulting from decisions about what research to do. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transplant Direct
                Transplant Direct
                TXD
                Transplantation Direct
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                2373-8731
                June 2016
                19 May 2016
                : 2
                : 6
                : e79
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
                [2] 2 Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
                [3] 3 Department of Nephrology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
                [4] 4 Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
                [5] 5 Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
                [6] 6 Transplant Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
                [7] 7 Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
                [8] 8 Renal Division, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
                [9] 9 ESRD Network 18, Los Angeles, CA.
                [10] 10 Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Organ Transplantation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
                [11] 11 School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
                [12] 12 Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
                [13] 13 Crowe Associates Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom.
                [14] 14PKD International, London, United Kingdom.
                [15] 15 Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute and O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
                [16] 16 Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
                [17] 17 Renal Division, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
                [18] 18 Centre for Nephrology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
                [19] 19 Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
                [20] 20 Department of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, University Francois Rabelais, Tours, France.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Allison Tong, PhD, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead NSW 2145, Australia. ( allison.tong@ 123456sydney.edu.au ).
                Article
                TXD50069 00010
                10.1097/TXD.0000000000000593
                4946524
                27500269
                459ec3c0-e5ff-4fc7-bf1b-fbe657ee9ae4
                Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                : 15 February 2016
                : 6 April 2016
                : 09 April 2016
                Page count
                Pages: 0
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article