Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC)

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling pati...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2023-10, Vol.148 (14), p.1113-1126
Hauptverfasser: Waksman, Ron, Pahuja, Mohit, van Diepen, Sean, Proudfoot, Alastair G, Morrow, David, Spitzer, Ernest, Nichol, Graham, Weisfeldt, Myron L, Moscucci, Mauro, Lawler, Patrick R, Mebazaa, Alexandre, Fan, Eddy, Dickert, Neal W, Samsky, Marc, Kormos, Robert, Piña, Ileana L, Zuckerman, Bram, Farb, Andrew, Sapirstein, John S, Simonton, Charles, West, Nick E J, Damluji, Abdulla A, Gilchrist, Ian C, Zeymer, Uwe, Thiele, Holger, Cutlip, Donald E, Krucoff, Mitchell, Abraham, William T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.
ISSN:0009-7322
1524-4539
1524-4539
DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064527