Sarcopenia, the age-related skeletal muscle decline, is associated with relevant clinical and socioeconomic negative outcomes in older persons. The study of this phenomenon and the development of preventive/therapeutic strategies represent public health priorities. The present document reports the results of a recent meeting of the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (a task force consisting of geriatricians and scientists from academia and industry) held on June 7–8, 2011 in Toulouse (France). The meeting was specifically focused at gaining knowledge on the currently available biomarkers (functional, biological, or imaging-related) that could be utilized in clinical trials of sarcopenia and considered the most reliable and promising to evaluate age-related modifications of skeletal muscle. Specific recommendations about the assessment of aging skeletal muscle in older people and the optimal methodological design of studies on sarcopenia were also discussed and finalized. Although the study of skeletal muscle decline is still in a very preliminary phase, the potential great benefits derived from a better understanding and treatment of this condition should encourage research on sarcopenia. However, the reasonable uncertainties (derived from exploring a novel field and the exponential acceleration of scientific progress) require the adoption of a cautious and comprehensive approach to the subject.

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient’s health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation, COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties in order to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment’s benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is in the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment’s intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of their typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the concept of interest. The relationship of these measurements to how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinician-reported outcomes (...

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients’ health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient’s health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment—Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

No abstract

Dementia is often characterized as being caused by one of several major diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), cerebrovascular disease, Lewy body disease, or a frontotemporal degeneration. Failure to acknowledge that more than one entity may be present precludes attempts to understand interactive relationships. The clinicopathological studies of dementia demonstrate that multiple pathologic processes often coexist.How overlapping pathologic findings affect the diagnosis and treatment of clinical AD and other dementia phenotypes was the topic taken up by the Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable in October 2014. This review will cover the neuropathologic basis of dementia, provide clinical perspectives on multiple pathologies, and discuss therapeutics and biomarkers targeting overlapping pathologies and how these issues impact clinical trials.High prevalence of multiple pathologic findings among individuals with clinical diagnosis of AD suggests that new treatment strategies may be needed to effectively treat AD and other dementing illnesses.