BEAT CF pulmonary exacerbations core protocol for evaluating the management of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare, inherited, life-limiting condition predominantly affecting the lungs, for which there is no cure. The disease is characterized by recurrent pulmonary exacerbations (PEx), which are thought to drive progressive lung damage. Management of these episodes is complex and generally involves multiple interventions targeting different aspects of disease. The emergence of innovative trials and use of Bayesian statistical methods has created renewed opportunities for studying heterogeneous populations in rare diseases. Here, we present the protocol for the BEAT CF PEx cohort, a prospective, multi-site, perpetual, platform enrolling adults and children with CF. The BEAT CF PEx cohort will be used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of PEx requiring intensive therapy (PERITs), with a primary focus on short-term improvements in lung function. This will be achieved through the conduct of cohort-nested studies, including adaptive clinical trials, within the BEAT CF PEx cohort. This protocol will outline key features of the BEAT CF PEx cohort, including the design, implementation, data collection and management, governance and analysis, and dissemination of results. METHODS: This platform will be conducted across multiple sites, commencing with CF treatment centers in Australia. People of all ages with a clinical diagnosis of CF will be eligible to participate, except those who have previously received a lung transplant. Data including demographic and clinical information, treatment details, and outcomes (including safety, microbiology, and patient-reported outcome measures including quality of life scores) will be systematically collected and securely stored via a digital centralized trial management system (CTMS). The primary endpoint is the absolute change in the percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) from the commencement of intensive therapy to 7 to 10 days afterwards. DISCUSSION: The BEAT CF PEx cohort will report clinical, treatment, and outcome data for PEx among people with CF and is intended to serve as a core (master) protocol for future nested, interventional trials evaluating treatment(s) for these episodes. The protocols for nested sub-studies are beyond the scope of this document and will be reported separately. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR BEAT CF Platform - ACTRN12621000638831. Registration date: Sept. 26, 2022.

Protocol for establishing a core outcome set for evaluation in studies of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary exacerbations are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). There is no consensus about which outcomes should be evaluated in studies of pulmonary exacerbations or how these outcomes should be measured. Outcomes of importance to people with lived experience of the disease are frequently omitted or inconsistently reported in studies, which limits the value of such studies for informing practice and policy. To better standardise outcome reporting and measurement, we aim to develop a core outcome set for studies of pulmonary exacerbations in people with CF (COS-PEX) and consensus recommendations for measurement of core outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Preliminary work for development of COS-PEX has been reported, including (1) systematic reviews of outcomes and methods for measurement reported in existing studies of pulmonary exacerbations; (2) workshops with people affected by CF within Australia; and (3) a Bayesian knowledge expert elicitation workshop with health professionals to ascertain outcomes of importance. Here we describe a protocol for the additional stages required for COS-PEX development and consensus methods for measurement of core outcomes. These include (1) an international two-round online Delphi survey and (2) consensus workshops to review and endorse the proposed COS-PEX and to agree with methods for measurement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National mutual ethics scheme approval has been provided by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (RGS 4926). Results will be disseminated via consumer and research networks and peer-reviewed publications. This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

Preferred health outcome states following treatment for pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis (CF) can produce a range of positive and negative outcomes. Understanding which of these outcomes are achievable and desirable to people affected by disease is critical to agreeing to goals of therapy and determining endpoints for trials. The relative importance of outcomes resulting from treatment of these episodes are not reported. We aimed to (i) quantify the relative importance of outcomes resulting from treatment for pulmonary exacerbations and (ii) develop patient and proxy carer-reported weighted outcome measures for use in adults and children, respectively. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was conducted. Participants were asked to make a series of hypothetical decisions about treatment for pulmonary exacerbations to assess how they make trade-offs between different attributes of health. Data were analysed using a conditional logistic regression model. The correlation coefficients from these data were rescaled to enable generation of a composite health outcome score between 0 and 100 (worst to best health state). RESULTS: 362 individuals participated (167 people with CF and 195 carers); of these, 206 completed the survey (56.9%). Most participants were female and resided in Australia. Difficult/painful breathing had the greatest impact on the preferred health state amongst people with CF and carers alike. Avoidance of gastrointestinal problems also heavily influenced decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These data should be considered when making treatment decisions and determining endpoints for trials. Further research is recommended to quantify the preferences of children and to determine whether these align with those of their carer(s).

Novel method to select meaningful outcomes for evaluation in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A standardised framework for selecting outcomes for evaluation in trials has been proposed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials working group. However, this method does not specify how to ensure that the outcomes that are selected are causally related to the disease and the health intervention being studied. Causal network diagrams may help researchers identify outcomes that are both clinically meaningful and likely to be causally dependent on the intervention, and endpoints that are, in turn, causally dependent on those outcomes. We aimed to (1) develop a generalisable method for selecting outcomes and endpoints in trials and (2) apply this method to select outcomes for evaluation in a trial investigating treatment strategies for pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: We conducted a series of online surveys and workshops among people affected by CF. We used a modified Delphi approach to develop a consensus list of important outcomes. A workshop involving domain experts elicited how these outcomes were causally related to the underlying pathophysiological processes. Meaningful outcomes were prioritised based on the extent to which each outcome captured separate rather than common aspects of the underlying pathophysiological process. RESULTS: The 10 prioritised outcomes were: breathing difficulty/pain, sputum production/clearance, fatigue, appetite, pain (not related to breathing), motivation/demoralisation, fevers/night sweats, treatment burden, inability to meet personal goals and avoidance of gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This proposed method for selecting meaningful outcomes for evaluation in clinical trials may improve the value of research as a basis for clinical decisions.

Long-term use and cost-effectiveness of secondary prevention drugs for heart disease in Western Australian seniors (WAMACH): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary prevention drugs for cardiac disease have been demonstrated by clinical trials to be effective in reducing future cardiovascular and mortality events (WAMACH is the Western Australian Medication Adherence and Costs in Heart disease study). Hence, most countries have adopted health policies and guidelines for the use of these drugs, and included them in government subsidised drug lists to encourage their use. However, suboptimal prescribing and non-adherence to these drugs remains a universal problem. Our study will investigate trends in dispensing patterns of drugs for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events and will also identify factors influencing these patterns. It will also assess the clinical and economic consequences of non-adherence and the cost-effectiveness of using these drugs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This population-based cohort study will use longitudinal data on almost 40,000 people aged 65 years or older who were hospitalised in Western Australia between 2003 and 2008 for coronary heart disease, heart failure or atrial fibrillation. Linking of several State and Federal government administrative data sets will provide person-based information on drugs dispensed precardiac and postcardiac event, reasons for hospital admission, emergency department visits, mortality and medical visits. Dispensed drug trends will be described, drug adherence measured and their association with future all-cause/cardiovascular events will be estimated. The cost-effectiveness of these long-term therapies for cardiac disease and the impact of adherence will be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approvals have been obtained from the Department of Health (Western Australian #2011/62 and Federal) and the University of Western Australia (RA/4/1/1130), in addition to HREC approvals from all participating hospitals. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at local, national and international conferences. Results will also be disseminated to consumer groups.