Proposal for an updated seizure classification framework in clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Steriade C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9302660 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Proposal for an updated seizure classification framework in clinical trials.
Steriade Claude C Sperling Michael R MR DiVentura Bree B Lozano Meryl M Shellhaas Renée A RA Kessler Sudha Kilaru SK Dlugos Dennis D French Jacqueline J
Epilepsia 20220107 3
The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) seizure classification scheme has been periodically updated to improve its reliability and applicability to clinicians and researchers alike. Here, members of the Epilepsy Study Consortium propose a pragmatic seizure classification, based on the ILAE scheme, designed for use in clinical trials with a focus on outcome measures that have high reliability, broad interpretability across stakeholders, and clinical relevance in the context of the develo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Mastocytosis is a hematologic neoplasm characterized by expansion and focal accumulation of neoplastic mast cells (MC) in diverse organs, including the skin, bone marrow (BM), spleen, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. The World Health Organization classification divides the disease into prognostically distinct variants of cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Although this classification remains valid, recent developments in the field and the advent of new diagnostic and prognostic parameters created a need to update and refine definitions and diagnostic criteria in MC neoplasms. In addition, MC activation syndromes (MCAS) and genetic features predisposing to SM and MCAS have been identified. To discuss these developments and refinements in the classification, we organized a Working Conference comprised of experts from Europe and the United States in August 2020. This article reports on outcomes from this conference. Of particular note, we propose adjustments in the classification of CM and SM, refinements in diagnostic criteria of SM variants, including smoldering SM and BM mastocytosis (BMM), and updated criteria for MCAS and other conditions involving MC. CD30 expression in MC now qualifies as a minor SM criterion, and BMM is now defined by SM criteria, absence of skin lesions and absence of B- and C-findings. A basal serum tryptase level exceeding 20 ng/mL remains a minor SM criterion, with recognition that hereditary alpha-tryptasemia and various myeloid neoplasms may also cause elevations in tryptase. Our updated proposal will support diagnostic evaluations and prognostication in daily practice and the conduct of clinical trials in MC disorders.
| S-EPMC8659997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nerve sheath tumors are a group of tumors originating from Schwann cells, fibroblasts, and perineurial cells. In veterinary pathology, the terminology for nerve sheath tumors remains inconsistent, and many pathologists follow the human classification of such tumors in practice. Immunohistochemistry plays an important role in the diagnosis of nerve sheath tumors, but specific immunohistochemical and molecular biomarkers are lacking. In our study, we histopathologically reevaluated 79 canine nerve sheath tumors and assessed their reactivity for the immunohistochemical markers Sox10, claudin-1, GFAP, CNPase, and Ki-67. Based on the results, we classified the tumors according to the most recent human classification. Twelve cases were diagnosed as benign nerve sheath tumors, including six neurofibromas, three nerve sheath myxomas, two hybrid nerve sheath tumors (perineurioma/neurofibroma and perineurioma/schwannoma), and one schwannoma. Sixty-seven tumors were malignant nerve sheath tumors, including fifty-six conventional, four perineural, one epithelioid malignant nerve sheath tumor, and six malignant nerve sheath tumors with divergent differentiation. We believe that with the application of the proposed panel, an updated classification of canine nerve sheath tumors could largely follow the recent human WHO classification of tumors of the cranial and paraspinal nerves, but prospective studies would be needed to assess its prognostic value.
| S-EPMC9144584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with a universally lethal prognosis despite maximal standard therapies. Here, we present a consensus treatment protocol based on the metabolic requirements of GBM cells for the two major fermentable fuels: glucose and glutamine. Glucose is a source of carbon and ATP synthesis for tumor growth through glycolysis, while glutamine provides nitrogen, carbon, and ATP synthesis through glutaminolysis. As no tumor can grow without anabolic substrates or energy, the simultaneous targeting of glycolysis and glutaminolysis is expected to reduce the proliferation of most if not all GBM cells. Ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT) leverages diet-drug combinations that inhibit glycolysis, glutaminolysis, and growth signaling while shifting energy metabolism to therapeutic ketosis. The glucose-ketone index (GKI) is a standardized biomarker for assessing biological compliance, ideally via real-time monitoring. KMT aims to increase substrate competition and normalize the tumor microenvironment through GKI-adjusted ketogenic diets, calorie restriction, and fasting, while also targeting glycolytic and glutaminolytic flux using specific metabolic inhibitors. Non-fermentable fuels, such as ketone bodies, fatty acids, or lactate, are comparatively less efficient in supporting the long-term bioenergetic and biosynthetic demands of cancer cell proliferation. The proposed strategy may be implemented as a synergistic metabolic priming baseline in GBM as well as other tumors driven by glycolysis and glutaminolysis, regardless of their residual mitochondrial function. Suggested best practices are provided to guide future KMT research in metabolic oncology, offering a shared, evidence-driven framework for observational and interventional studies.
| S-EPMC11622503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose an "efficacy-to-effectiveness" (E2E) clinical trial design, in which an effectiveness trial would commence seamlessly upon completion of the efficacy trial. Efficacy trials use inclusion/exclusion criteria to produce relatively homogeneous samples of participants with the target condition, conducted in settings that foster adherence to rigorous clinical protocols. Effectiveness trials use inclusion/exclusion criteria that generate heterogeneous samples that are more similar to the general patient spectrum, conducted in more varied settings, with protocols that approximate typical clinical care. In E2E trials, results from the efficacy trial component would be used to design the effectiveness trial component, to confirm and/or discern associations between clinical characteristics and treatment effects in typical care, and potentially to test new hypotheses. An E2E approach may improve the evidentiary basis for selecting treatments, expand understanding of the effectiveness of treatments in subgroups with particular clinical features, and foster incorporation of effectiveness information into regulatory processes.
| S-EPMC3904553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence based medicine aims to integrate scientific evidence, clinical experience, and patient values and preferences. Individual health care professionals need to appraise the evidence from randomized trials and observational studies when guidelines are not yet available. To date, tools for assessment of bias and terminologies for bias are specific for each study design. Moreover, most tools appeal only to methodological knowledge to detect bias, not to subject matter knowledge, i.e. in-depth medical knowledge about a topic. We propose a unified framework that enables the coherent assessment of bias across designs.MethodsEpidemiologists traditionally distinguish between three types of bias in observational studies: confounding, information bias, and selection bias. These biases result from a common cause, systematic error in the measurement or common effect of the intervention and outcome respectively. We applied this conceptual framework to randomized trials and show how it can be used to identify bias. The three sources of bias were illustrated with graphs that visually represent researchers' assumptions about the relationships between the investigated variables (causal diagrams).ResultsCritical appraisal of evidence started with the definition of the research question in terms of the population of interest, the compared interventions and the main outcome. Next, we used causal diagrams to illustrate how each source of bias can lead to over- or underestimated treatment effects. Then, we discussed how randomization, blinded outcome measurement and intention-to-treat analysis minimize bias in trials. Finally, we identified study aspects that can only be appraised with subject matter knowledge, irrespective of study design.ConclusionsThe unified framework encompassed the three main sources of bias for the effect of an assigned intervention on an outcome. It facilitated the integration of methodological and subject matter knowledge in the assessment of bias. We hope that graphical diagrams will help clarify debate among professionals by reducing misunderstandings based on different terminology for bias.
| S-EPMC7510067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mounting evidence suggests that there is frequently considerable variation in the risk of the outcome of interest in clinical trial populations. These differences in risk will often cause clinically important heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) across the trial population, such that the balance between treatment risks and benefits may differ substantially between large identifiable patient subgroups; the "average" benefit observed in the summary result may even be non-representative of the treatment effect for a typical patient in the trial. Conventional subgroup analyses, which examine whether specific patient characteristics modify the effects of treatment, are usually unable to detect even large variations in treatment benefit (and harm) across risk groups because they do not account for the fact that patients have multiple characteristics simultaneously that affect the likelihood of treatment benefit. Based upon recent evidence on optimal statistical approaches to assessing HTE, we propose a framework that prioritizes the analysis and reporting of multivariate risk-based HTE and suggests that other subgroup analyses should be explicitly labeled either as primary subgroup analyses (well-motivated by prior evidence and intended to produce clinically actionable results) or secondary (exploratory) subgroup analyses (performed to inform future research). A standardized and transparent approach to HTE assessment and reporting could substantially improve clinical trial utility and interpretability.
| S-EPMC2928211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesUnwarranted clinical variation is a topic of heightened interest in health care systems around the world. While there are many publications and reports on clinical variation, few studies are conceptually grounded in a theoretical model. This study describes the empirical foundations of the field and proposes an analytic framework.MethodStructured construct mapping of published empirical studies which explicitly address unwarranted clinical variation.ResultsA total of 190 studies were classified in terms of three key dimensions: perspective (assessing variation across geographical areas or across providers); criteria for assessment (measuring absolute variation against a standard, or relative variation within a comparator group); and object of analysis (using process, structure/resource, or outcome metrics).ConclusionConsideration of the results of the mapping exercise-together with a review of adjustment, explanatory and stratification variables, and the factors associated with residual variation-informed the development of an analytic framework. This framework highlights the role that agency and motivation, evidence and judgement, and personal and organizational capacity play in clinical decision making and reveals key facets that distinguish warranted from unwarranted clinical variation. From a measurement perspective, it underlines the need for careful consideration of attribution, aggregation, models of care, and temporality in any assessment.
| S-EPMC7317701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo develop a survey to help define the main problems in radiological clinical trials.MethodsSince 2006, we have managed seven different radiological clinical trials recruiting patients in academic and non-academic centres. We developed a preliminary questionnaire using a four-round Delphi approach to identify problems occurring in radiological clinical trials run at our centre. We investigated the recruitment experience, involvement of all multi-disciplinary team members and main obstacles to completing the projects. A final round of Delphi processes elucidated solutions to the identified problems.ResultsAmong 19/20 (95%) respondents, 10 (53%) were young physicians (under 35 years old), and the respondents included non-faculty members, fellows, residents, and undergraduate students. Ninety-four percent (18/19) of respondents showed interest in conducting clinical trials. On a scale of 1 to 10, the problems with higher/worse scores (8-9) were related to technical or communication problems. The most frequent problems across all studies were technical problems related to clinical trial equipment, insufficient willingness to participate, obstacles to understanding the design of electronic-case report form and extra work.ConclusionThe developed questionnaire identified the main recurring problems in radiological clinical trials as perceived by end-users and helped define possible solutions that are mostly related to having dedicated clinical trial research staff.
| S-EPMC5183990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic tinnitus is a common condition with a high burden of disease. While many different treatments are used in clinical practice, the evidence for the efficacy of these treatments is low and the variance of treatment response between individuals is high. This is most likely due to the great heterogeneity of tinnitus with respect to clinical features as well as underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. There is a clear need to find effective treatment options in tinnitus, however, clinical trials differ substantially with respect to methodological quality and design. Consequently, the conclusions that can be derived from these studies are limited and jeopardize comparison between studies. Here, we discuss our view of the most important aspects of trial design in clinical studies in tinnitus and make suggestions for an international methodological standard in tinnitus trials. We hope that the proposed methodological standard will stimulate scientific discussion and will help to improve the quality of trials in tinnitus.
| S-EPMC3897200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPropofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting.MethodsWe searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143).ResultsWe identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 235), corresponding to a 98.4% probability of any increase in mortality. A statistically significant mortality increase in the propofol group was confirmed in subgroups of cardiac surgery, adult patients, volatile agent as comparator, large studies, and studies with low mortality in the comparator arm.ConclusionsPropofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.
| S-EPMC10099692 | biostudies-literature