What outcomes should be measured in feline chronic kidney disease treatment trials? Establishing a core outcome set for research

Does Vaccine-Induced Maternally-Derived Immunity Protect Swine Offspring against Influenza a Viruses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenge Trials from 1990 to May 2021

It is unclear if piglets benefit from vaccination of sows against influenza. For the first time, methods of evidence-based medicine were applied to answer the question: "Does vaccine-induced maternally-derived immunity (MDI) protect swine offspring against influenza A viruses?". Challenge trials were reviewed that were published from 1990 to April 2021 and measured at least one of six outcomes in MDI-positive versus MDI-negative offspring (hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers, virus titers, time to begin and time to stop shedding, risk of infection, average daily gain (ADG), and coughing) (n = 15). Screening and extraction of study characteristics was conducted in duplicate by two reviewers, with data extraction and assessment for risk of bias performed by one. Homology was defined by the antigenic match of vaccine and challenge virus hemagglutinin epitopes. Results: Homologous, but not heterologous MDI, reduced virus titers in piglets. There was no difference, calculated as relative risks (RR), in infection incidence risk over the entire study period; however, infection hazard (instantaneous risk) was decreased in pigs with MDI (log HR = -0.64, 95% CI: -1.13, -0.15). Overall, pigs with MDI took about a ½ day longer to begin shedding virus post-challenge (MD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.99) but the hazard of infected pigs ceasing to shed was not different (log HR = 0.32, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.93). HI titers were synthesized qualitatively and although data on ADG and coughing was extracted, details were insufficient for conducting meta-analyses. Conclusion: Homology of vaccine strains with challenge viruses is an important consideration when assessing vaccine effectiveness. Herd viral dynamics are complex and may include concurrent or sequential exposures in the field. The practical significance of reduced weaned pig virus titers is, therefore, not known and evidence from challenge trials is insufficient to make inferences on the effects of MDI on incidence risk, time to begin or to cease shedding virus, coughing, and ADG. The applicability of evidence from single-strain challenge trials to field practices is limited. Despite the synthesis of six outcomes, challenge trial evidence does not support or refute vaccination of sows against influenza to protect piglets. Additional research is needed; controlled trials with multi-strain concurrent or sequential heterologous challenges have not been conducted, and sequential homologous exposure trials were rare. Consensus is also warranted on (1) the selection of core outcomes, (2) the sizing of trial populations to be reflective of field populations, (3) the reporting of antigenic characterization of vaccines, challenge viruses, and sow exposure history, and (4) on the collection of non-aggregated individual pig data.

The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.

Maximizing value and minimizing waste in clinical trials in swine: Selecting outcomes to build an evidence base

Researchers planning clinical trials should identify the primary trial outcome and adequately power the trial to detect clinically meaningful differences in this outcome. All primary and secondary outcomes and their measurement should be comprehensively described, and their results reported. There is evidence that trials on the same subject use different outcomes or measure the same outcome in different ways, making it difficult to compare intervention effectiveness across clinical trials. Consensus development of core outcome sets could improve consistency in outcome measures used across trials and aid in development of an evidence-based body of literature on intervention effectiveness in swine populations.