Jochen Schmitt

Bio: Jochen Schmitt is an academic researcher from Dresden University of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Atopic dermatitis. The author has an hindex of 60, co-authored 442 publications receiving 13465 citations. Previous affiliations of Jochen Schmitt include German Cancer Research Center & University of Nottingham.

The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0

Abstract: The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta‐analysis and Cochrane overview

Abstract: Background Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates. Objectives To compare the adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor blocker (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed mixed-effects logistic regression using an arm-based, random-effects model within an empirical Bayes framework. Main results We included 163 RCTs with 50,010 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Adjusted for dose, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 30, 95% CI 21 to 60) and withdrawals due to adverse events (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.64; NNTH = 37, 95% CI 19 to 190) and an increased risk of TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706) compared to control.The rate of serious adverse events, serious infections, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment. Certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher risk of serious infections compared to control treatment (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.79; NNTH = 17, 95% CI 7 to 68). Infliximab was associated with significantly higher risk of withdrawals due to adverse events compared to control (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.91; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 8 to 28). Indirect comparisons revealed that abatacept and anakinra were associated with a significantly lower risk of serious adverse events compared to most other biologics. Although the overall numbers are relatively small, certolizumab pegol was associated with significantly higher odds of serious infections compared to etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab; abatacept was significantly less likely than infliximab and tocilizumab to be associated with serious infections. Abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab were significantly less likely than infliximab to result in withdrawals due to adverse events. Authors' conclusions Overall, in the short term biologics were associated with significantly higher rates of total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and TB reactivation. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared to control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.There is an urgent need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and the comparative safety of different biologics. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics.

The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index Is the Adequate Criterion to Define Severity in Chronic Plaque-Type Psoriasis

Abstract: Background: Chronic plaque-type psoriasis is a major dermatosis, but a significant question is still unanswered: What defines severity in chronic plaque-type psoriasis? While objective assessments like the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) have frequently been used in clinical trials, quality of life (QOL) questionnaires are currently becoming more and more popular. Objective: This article summarizes the most important objective and subjective measurements of severity in psoriasis. For every dermatologist it is critically important to distinguish between severe psoriasis and psoriasis that severely affects QOL. Even if the PASI also has disadvantages, it is the most adequate instrument available to evaluate severity in plaque-type psoriasis. Result: We provide reasons why PASI >12 defines severe, PASI 7–12 moderate and PASI

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement.

Abstract: Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users.

What are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review

Abstract: Background Valid and reliable outcome measurements are a prerequisite for evidence-based practice. The comparative validity and reliability of outcome measurements for assessing atopic eczema (AE) severity is unclear. Objective We sought to assess the validity, reliability, sensitivity to change, and ease of use of outcome measurements for AE. We also sought to give recommendations on which outcomes to use in clinical research and for clinical monitoring. Methods We performed a systematic review and survey of clinical experts and patients. Results Twenty published outcome measurements were identified. There is evidence of adequate construct validity for 3 measurements (Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis index [SCORAD], Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI], and Three Item Severity Score), adequate internal consistency of 1 scale (Patient-oriented Eczema Measure [POEM]), adequate interobserver reliability of 5 measurements (Basic Clinical Scoring System; Nottingham Eczema Severity Score; Objective Severity Assessment of Atopic Dermatitis; Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis severity score; and SCORAD), adequate test-retest reliability of 1 scale (POEM), and adequate sensitivity to change of 3 measurements (EASI, SCORAD, and Investigators' Global Atopic Dermatitis Assessment). Most outcome measurements have adequate content validity, as assessed by patients and experts. Data on the time to perform the assessment was identified for 8 outcome measurements. Only SCORAD, EASI, and POEM have been tested sufficiently and performed adequately. Conclusion There are too many published outcome measures for AE. Most have not been tested properly or perform adequately when tested, and their continued use hampers scientific communication. Clinical implications Only SCORAD, EASI, and POEM currently perform adequately. These scales should be used in future studies.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Abstract: Background and Purpose- The purpose of these guidelines is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive set of recommendations in a single document for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. The intended audiences are prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators. These guidelines supersede the 2013 Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines and are an update of the 2018 AIS Guidelines. Methods- Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statements Oversight Committee, representing various areas of medical expertise. Members were not allowed to participate in discussions or to vote on topics relevant to their relations with industry. An update of the 2013 AIS Guidelines was originally published in January 2018. This guideline was approved by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. In April 2018, a revision to these guidelines, deleting some recommendations, was published online by the AHA. The writing group was asked review the original document and revise if appropriate. In June 2018, the writing group submitted a document with minor changes and with inclusion of important newly published randomized controlled trials with >100 participants and clinical outcomes at least 90 days after AIS. The document was sent to 14 peer reviewers. The writing group evaluated the peer reviewers' comments and revised when appropriate. The current final document was approved by all members of the writing group except when relationships with industry precluded members from voting and by the governing bodies of the AHA. These guidelines use the American College of Cardiology/AHA 2015 Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence and the new AHA guidelines format. Results- These guidelines detail prehospital care, urgent and emergency evaluation and treatment with intravenous and intra-arterial therapies, and in-hospital management, including secondary prevention measures that are appropriately instituted within the first 2 weeks. The guidelines support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care in both the prehospital and hospital settings. Conclusions- These guidelines provide general recommendations based on the currently available evidence to guide clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. In many instances, however, only limited data exist demonstrating the urgent need for continued research on treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for