Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery.

Despite major improvements in diagnostics and interventional therapies, cardiovascular diseases remain a major health care and socio-economic burden both in western and developing countries, in which this burden is increasing in close correlation to economic growth. Health authorities and the general population have started to recognize that the fight against these diseases can only be won if their burden is faced by increasing our investment on interventions in lifestyle changes and prevention. There is an overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of secondary prevention initiatives including cardiac rehabilitation in terms of reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, secondary prevention is still too poorly implemented in clinical practice, often only on selected populations and over a limited period of time. The development of systematic and full comprehensive preventive programmes is warranted, integrated in the organization of national health systems. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of the process of delivery and outcomes is a necessity. Cardiology and secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation, have evolved almost independently of each other and although each makes a unique contribution it is now time to join forces under the banner of preventive cardiology and create a comprehensive model that optimizes long term outcomes for patients and reduces the future burden on health care services. These are the aims that the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation has foreseen to promote secondary preventive cardiology in clinical practice.

Outcome Measures in Glaucoma:A Systematic Review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

In clinical trials, the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial for the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Selection of inappropriate outcomes can compromise the utility of a trial. However, the process of selecting the most suitable outcomes to include can be complex. Ideally, glaucoma trials aim to evaluate important outcomes for clinicians and patients. A high variability in the selection of outcomes suggests that there is no consensus on how best to evaluate the effect of glaucoma interventions. Further, it makes evidence synthesis difficult. The purpose of this review is to determine the extent of clinical outcome measures used in published glaucoma Cochrane Reviews and Protocols.

Overview of clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Background: In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Glaucoma is a chronic eye disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. A variety of outcomes has been used and reported in glaucoma RCTs.

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma RCTs between January 2006 and March 2012.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using standard methodology. We searched for RCTs in glaucoma published in English with no restrictions on the population type or size, or applied interventions. All clinical outcomes were included. Patient-reported, pharmacokinetic and economic outcomes were excluded.

Results: The search strategy identified 4288 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Amongst the IOPrelated measures, the most commonly used was mean IOP (n=143, 15% of all measures). Safety outcomes were commonly reported, in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were utilized in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions: There is a large variability in clinical outcomes used for glaucoma RCTs and in the way each outcome is reported. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

Use of the child health utility and strengths and difficulties outcome measures in economic evaluations of school-based interventions: data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Northern Ireland

Background There is growing evidence linking early social and emotional wellbeing to later academic performance and various health outcomes including mental health. An economic evaluation was designed alongside the Roots of Empathy cluster-randomised trial evaluation, which is a school-based intervention for improving pupils’ social and emotional wellbeing. Exploration of the relevance of the Strengths and Diffi culties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) in school-based health economic evaluations is warranted. The SDQ is a behavioural screening questionnaire for 4–17-year-old children, consisting of a total diffi culties score, and also prosocial behaviour,
which aims to identify positive aspects of behaviour. The CHU9D is a generic preference-based health-related quality of life instrument for 7–17-year-old children.

Consensus on Outcome Measures for Glaucoma Effectiveness Trials: Results From a Delphi and Nominal Group Technique Approaches

PURPOSE: Comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across glaucoma trials can be problematic due to differences in definitions of outcomes. We sought to identify a key set of clinical outcomes and reach consensus on how best to measure them from the perspective of glaucoma experts.

METHODS: A 2-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. Round 1 involved 25 items identified from a systematic review. Round 2 was developed based on information gathered in round 1. A 10-point Likert scale was used to quantify importance and consensus of outcomes (7 outcomes) and ways of measuring them (44 measures). Experts were identified through 2 glaucoma societies membership-the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society and the European Glaucoma Society. A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) followed the Delphi process. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: A total of 65 participants completed round 1 out of 320; of whom 56 completed round 2 (86%). Agreement on the importance of outcomes was reached on 48/51 items (94%). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual field (VF), safety, and anatomic outcomes were classified as highly important. Regarding methods of measurement of IOP, "mean follow-up IOP" using Goldmann applanation tonometry achieved the highest importance, whereas for evaluating VFs "global index mean deviation/defect (MD)" and "rate of VF progression" were the most important. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was identified as highly important. The NGT results reached consensus on "change of IOP (mean of 3 consecutive measurements taken at fixed time of day) from baseline," change of VF-MD values (3 reliable VFs at baseline and follow-up visit) from baseline, and change of RNFL thickness (2 good quality OCT images) from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached among glaucoma experts on how best to measure IOP, VF, and anatomic outcomes in glaucoma randomized controlled trials.