Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document

OBJECTIVES The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection. BACKGROUND A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous. METHODS AND RESULTS Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Towards a consensus on a hearing preservation classification system

The comprehensive Hearing Preservation classification system presented in this paper is suitable for use for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing. If adopted as a universal reporting standard, as it was designed to be, it should prove highly beneficial by enabling future studies to quickly and easily compare the results of previous studies and meta-analyze their data. Objectives: To develop a comprehensive Hearing Preservation classification system suitable for use for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing. Methods: The HEARRING group discussed and reviewed a number of different propositions of a HP classification systems and reviewed critical appraisals to develop a qualitative system in accordance with the prerequisites. Results: The Hearing Preservation Classification System proposed herein fulfills the following necessary criteria: 1) classification is independent from users' initial hearing, 2) it is appropriate for all cochlear implant users with measurable pre-operative residual hearing, 3) it covers the whole range of pure tone average from 0 to 120 dB; 4) it is easy to use and easy to understand.

EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

CONTEXT The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report. CONCLUSIONS These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion.

Pathology working group review of histopathologic specimens from three laboratory studies of diclofenac in trout.

While the pathology peer review/pathology working group (PWG) model has long been used in mammalian toxicologic pathology to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and objectivity of histopathology data, application of this paradigm to ecotoxicological studies has thus far been limited. In the current project, the PWG approach was used to evaluate histopathologic sections of gills, liver, kidney, and/or intestines from three previously published studies of diclofenac in trout, among which there was substantial variation in the reported histopathologic findings. The main objectives of this review process were to investigate and potentially reconcile these interstudy differences, and based on the results, to establish an appropriate no observed effect concentration (NOEC). Following a complete examination of all histologic sections and original diagnoses by a single experienced fish pathologist (pathology peer review), a two-day PWG session was conducted to allow members of a four-person expert panel to determine the extent of treatment-related findings in each of the three trout studies. The PWG was performed according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Pesticide Regulation (PR) 94-5 (EPA Pesticide Regulation, 1994). In accordance with standard procedures, the PWG review was conducted by the non-voting chairperson in a manner intended to minimize bias, and thus during the evaluation, the four voting panelists were unaware of the treatment group status of individual fish and the original diagnoses associated with the histologic sections. Based on the results of this review, findings related to diclofenac exposure included minimal to slightly increased thickening of the gill filament tips in fish exposed to the highest concentration tested (1,000 μg/L), plus a previously undiagnosed finding, decreased hepatic glycogen, which also occurred at the 1,000 μg/L dose level. The panel found little evidence to support other reported effects of diclofenac in trout, and thus the overall NOEC was determined to be >320 μg/L. By consensus, the PWG panel was able to identify diagnostic inconsistencies among and within the three prior studies; therefore this exercise demonstrated the value of the pathology peer review/PWG approach for assessing the reliability of histopathology results that may be used by regulatory agencies for risk assessment.