METHODS: Real-world evidence (RWE) studies evaluating the incidence, prevalence, or recurrence of HD, as well as SLRs including a meta-analytic component reporting on the efficacy of systemic or topical pharmacological treatments for adults with HD, were included. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS: The SLR identified 44 eligible publications. Consistent data were limited on the epidemiology of HD or HD recurrence. Specifically, incidence and prevalence reported across geographies were impacted by differences in data collection. Reported risk factors for HD were sedentary behavior, constipation, male gender, and age. Twenty-three RWE studies and one meta-analysis reported HD recurrence rates ranging from 0 to 56.5% following surgery or phlebotonics, with most (n = 19) reporting rates of 20% or less. In addition to time since treatment, risk factors for recurring disease were similar to those for HD in general. With respect to treatment, micronized purified flavonoid fractions significantly improved the main symptoms of HD compared to other pharmacological treatments.
CONCLUSION: The SLRs did not identify any RWE studies reporting recurrence in patients receiving systemic or topical treatments, highlighting the need for future research in this area. Further, more studies are needed to understand the optimum duration of medical treatment to prevent recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.
FINDINGS: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.
METHODS: The registry was developed in an iterative consensus-based manner by a panel of neurotrauma professionals. Proposed registry objectives, structure, and data points were established in 2 international multidisciplinary neurotrauma meetings, after which a survey consisting of the same data points was circulated within the global neurotrauma community. The survey results were disseminated in a final meeting to reach a consensus on the most pertinent registry variables.
RESULTS: A total of 156 professionals from 53 countries, including both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, responded to the survey. The final consensus-based registry includes patients with TBI who required neurosurgical admission, a neurosurgical procedure, or a critical care admission. The data set comprised clinically pertinent information on demographics, injury characteristics, imaging, treatments, and short-term outcomes. Based on the consensus, the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry was established.
CONCLUSION: The GEO-TBI registry will enable high-quality data collection, clinical auditing, and research activity, and it is supported by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and the National Institute of Health Research Global Health Program. The GEO-TBI registry ( https://geotbi.org ) is now open for participant site recruitment. Any center involved in TBI management is welcome to join the collaboration to access the registry.
OBJECTIVE: The GEO-TBI: Incidence study aims to describe TBI epidemiology and outcomes according to development indices, and to highlight best practices to facilitate further comparative research.
DESIGN: Multi-centre, international, registry-based, prospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: Any unit managing TBI and participating in the GEO-TBI registry will be eligible to join the study. Each unit will select a 90-day study period. All TBI patients meeting the registry inclusion criteria (neurosurgical/ICU admission or neurosurgical operation) during the selected study period will be included in the GEO-TBI: Incidence.
METHODS: All units will form a study team, that will gain local approval, identify eligible patients and input data. Data will be collected via the secure registry platform and validated after collection. Identifiers may be collected if required for local utility in accordance with the GEO-TBI protocol.
DATA: Data related to initial presentation, interventions and short-term outcomes will be collected in line with the GEO-TBI core dataset, developed following consensus from an iterative survey and feedback process. Patient demographics, injury details, timing and nature of interventions and post-injury care will be collected alongside associated complications. The primary outcome measures for the study will be the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and 14-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures will be mortality and extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) at the most recent follow-up timepoint.