1. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials www.comet-initiative.org

2. Acknowledgements COMET Management Group: Doug Altman, Jane Blazeby, Mike Clarke, Paula Williamson COMET project coordinator: Elizabeth Gargon Funding: MRC, FP7 Collaborators: Peter Tugwell, Maarten Boers, Caroline Terwee, Holger Schunemann, Michael Rose, Sunita Vohra, Roberto D’Amico, Lorenzo Moja

3. Health care research is untidy It needs to be tidied up if it is to achieve its aim of helping practitioners and patients to improve health care and health This needs initiatives such as The Cochrane Collaboration for the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews and COMET for core outcome sets

4. 4 Systematic review of evidence on selective outcome reporting Studies reporting positive or significant results are more likely to be published Outcomes that are statistically significant are more likely to be fully reported 40–62% of publications had at least one primary outcome changed, newly introduced or omitted compared to protocol [Dwan et al, PLoS ONE 2008]

5. 5 Interviews with trialists (n=59) Discussion of outcomes listed in their protocol but not their trial report 29% trials displayed outcome reporting bias All trialists mentioned either -outcomes not measured -outcomes measured but not analysed - Lack of clarity about importance or feasibility of measurement for outcomes chosen [Smyth et al, BMJ 2010]

6. Core outcome set An agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or health care

7. Consider both benefits and harms The minimum (other outcomes can be collected) Focus is on trials of effectiveness “What” to measure, then “How” Core outcome set

8. Scope of the COS “The specific area of health or healthcare that the COS is to apply to, in terms of health condition, population and types of interventions needs to be determined.” All stages or severity of a specific health condition or focussed on a particular disease category - e.g. in colorectal cancer, a COS might be developed for all patients or it may focus on patients with metastatic disease All treatment types or for a particular intervention - e.g. in morbid obesity, a COS may be created to use in trials of all interventions or just bariatric surgery alone

9. Advantages of core outcome sets Increases consistency across trials Maximise potential for trial to contribute to systematic reviews of these key outcomes Much more likely to measure appropriate outcomes Major reduction in selective reporting 9

10. www.omeract.org Trials 2007 8:38

11. Improvements over time (Kirkham et al, Trials 2013) Studies reporting full RA COS (%) WHO/ILAR RA COS EMA guideline FDA guideline 100 80 60 40 20 198519901995200020052010 0 Mean number of clinical outcomes 6.0 6.5 7.0 0.0 drug studies non-drug studies

12. The COMET Initiative To raise awareness of current problems with outcomes in clinical trials To encourage COS development and uptake To provide resources to allow practitioners to develop COS, e.g. COMET database An international network of trialists, systematic reviewers, health service users, practitioners, editors, funders, policy makers, regulators

13. COMET Initiative ‘What’ to measure ‘How’ to measure (validity, reliability, feasibility) - COSMIN - PROMIS - PROQOLID - TREAT-NMD ROM

14. Website

15. Background

16. COMET Database A publically accessible internet-based resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development To include planned and ongoing work, as well as published core outcome set development 200+ published, 50+ ongoing

17. Search results

18. Scope Identifying existing knowledge Stakeholder involvement Consensus methods Achieving global consensus Regular review, feedback, updating Implementation Clear presentation

19. Stakeholder involvement Health care practitioners Patients, carers, representatives Regulators Industry representatives Researchers Stage of involvement may vary by group

20. Patient and public involvement Impact of involvement – Rheumatology (OMERACT): fatigue – Chronic pain (IMMPACT): expansion of previously proposed core outcome domains – Multiple sclerosis: fatigue, continence – Paediatric asthma

21. Comparison of studies SINHA ET AL REDDELL ET ALBUSSE ET AL 5-11 years12+ years TOP 6 PARENTS +/- CLINICIANSESSENTIALOPTIONALESSENTIALOPTIONALESSENTIALOPTIONAL Symptoms √√ √ Exacerbations √√ √ √ QoL √√ √ √ Death √ √ Normal activities √ √ Exercise ability √ Reliever use √ √ Lung function √ √ √ Tx side effects √ Healthcare utilisation √√ √ Biomarkers √ Hyper-responsiveness √

25. Professor Hywel Williams, Chair of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board: ‘Patients and professionals making decisions about health care need access to reliable evidence. The new COMET database will help researchers across the NIHR family and beyond when choosing the outcomes to include in the studies that will establish this evidence base'.

26. Since the COMET website and database were launched in August 2011: – 3800+ searches have been undertaken – 12000+ individuals visited – 110+ countries visiting the site Impact

27. www.comet-initiative.org e.gargon@liv.ac.uk Twitter: @COMETinitiative