Eveline Nüesch

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND We hypothesized that in patients with stable coronary artery disease and stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed on the basis of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) would be superior to medical therapy. METHODS In 1220 patients with stable coronary artery disease, we assessed the FFR in all stenoses that were visible on angiography. Patients who had at least one stenosis with an FFR of 0.80 or less were randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy alone and were included in a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization within 2 years. RESULTS The rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (8.1% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.57; P<0.001). This reduction was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group (4.0% vs. 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38; P<0.001), with no significant between-group differences in the rates of death and myocardial infarction. Urgent revascularizations that were triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic changes on electrocardiography were less frequent in the PCI group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, P=0.01). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or myocardial infarction from 8 days to 2 years was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (4.6% vs. 8.0%, P=0.04). Among registry patients, the rate of the primary end point was 9.0% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).

Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis

Objective To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. Main outcome measure Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at −0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Data sources Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was −0.4 cm (95% credible interval −0.7 to −0.1 cm) for glucosamine, −0.3 cm (−0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and −0.5 cm (−0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: population based cohort study

Objective To examine all cause and disease specific mortality in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Design Population based cohort study. Setting General practices in the southwest of England. Participants 1163 patients aged 35 years or over with symptoms and radiological confirmation of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Main outcome measures Age and sex standardised mortality ratios and multivariable hazard ratios of death after a median of 14 years’ follow-up. Results Patients with osteoarthritis had excess all cause mortality compared with the general population (standardised mortality ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 1.70). Excess mortality was observed for all disease specific causes of death but was particularly pronounced for cardiovascular (standardised mortality ratio 1.71, 1.49 to 1.98) and dementia associated mortality (1.99, 1.22 to 3.25). Mortality increased with increasing age (P for trend <0.001), male sex (adjusted hazard ratio 1.59, 1.30 to 1.96), self reported history of diabetes (1.95, 1.31 to 2.90), cancer (2.28, 1.50 to 3.47), cardiovascular disease (1.38, 1.12 to 1.71), and walking disability (1.48, 1.17 to 1.86). However, little evidence existed for increased mortality associated with previous joint replacement, obesity, depression, chronic inflammatory disease, eye disease, or presence of pain at baseline. The more severe the walking disability, the higher was the risk of death (P for trend <0.001). Conclusion Patients with osteoarthritis are at higher risk of death compared with the general population. History of diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease and the presence of walking disability are major risk factors. Management of patients with osteoarthritis and walking disability should focus on effective treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, as well as on increasing physical activity.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study.

Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients’ reported pain as an outcome. Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. Conclusions Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

Viscosupplementation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Viscosupplementation, the intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, is widely used for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. PURPOSE To assess the benefits and risks of viscosupplementation for adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to January 2012), and other sources. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials in any language that compared viscosupplementation with sham or nonintervention control in adults with knee osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION Primary outcomes were pain intensity and flare-ups. Secondary outcomes included function and serious adverse events. Reviewers used duplicate abstractions, assessed study quality, pooled data by using a random-effects model, examined funnel plots, and explored heterogeneity by using meta-regression. DATA SYNTHESIS Eighty-nine trials involving 12 667 adults met inclusion criteria. Sixty-eight had a sham control, 40 had a follow-up duration greater than 3 months, and 22 used cross-linked forms of hyaluronic acid. Overall, 71 trials (9617 patients) showed that viscosupplementation moderately reduced pain (effect size, -0.37 [95% CI, -0.46 to -0.28]). There was important between-trial heterogeneity and an asymmetrical funnel plot: Trial size, blinded outcome assessment, and publication status were associated with effect size. Five unpublished trials (1149 patients) showed an effect size of -0.03 (CI, -0.14 to 0.09). Eighteen large trials with blinded outcome assessment (5094 patients) showed a clinically irrelevant effect size of -0.11 (CI, -0.18 to -0.04). Six trials (811 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased, although not statistically significantly, the risk for flare-ups (relative risk, 1.51 [CI, 0.84 to 2.72]). Fourteen trials (3667 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased the risk for serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.41 [CI, 1.02 to 1.97]). LIMITATIONS Trial quality was generally low. Safety data were often not reported. CONCLUSION In patients with knee osteoarthritis, viscosupplementation is associated with a small and clinically irrelevant benefit and an increased risk for serious adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Arco Foundation.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. Design Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. Data sources 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. Methods Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. Results 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference −0.13, 95% confidence interval −0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (τ2=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. Conclusion Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Prevalence of cam-type deformity on hip magnetic resonance imaging in young males: a cross-sectional study.

To determine the prevalence of cam‐type deformities on hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in young males.

Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia syndrome: network meta-analysis

Objectives To synthesise the available evidence on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions recommended for fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods Electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing any therapeutic approach as recommended in FMS guidelines (except complementary and alternative medicine) with control interventions in patients with FMS. Primary outcomes were pain and quality of life. Data extraction was done using standardised forms. Results 102 trials in 14 982 patients and eight active interventions (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), the gamma-amino butyric acid analogue pregabalin, aerobic exercise, balneotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), multicomponent therapy) were included. Most of the trials were small and hampered by methodological quality, introducing heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network. When restricted to large trials with ≥100 patients per group, heterogeneity was low and benefits for SNRIs and pregabalin compared with placebo were statistically significant, but small and not clinically relevant. For non-pharmacological interventions, only one large trial of CBT was available. In medium-sized trials with ≥50 patients per group, multicomponent therapy showed small to moderate benefits over placebo, followed by aerobic exercise and CBT. Conclusions Benefits of pharmacological treatments in FMS are of questionable clinical relevance and evidence for benefits of non-pharmacological interventions is limited. A combination of pregabalin or SNRIs as pharmacological interventions and multicomponent therapy, aerobic exercise and CBT as non-pharmacological interventions seems most promising for the management of FMS.

Delayed Coverage in Malapposed and Side-Branch Struts With Respect to Well-Apposed Struts in Drug-Eluting Stents In Vivo Assessment With Optical Coherence Tomography

BACKGROUND Pathology studies on fatal cases of very late stent thrombosis have described incomplete neointimal coverage as common substrate, in some cases appearing at side-branch struts. Intravascular ultrasound studies have described the association between incomplete stent apposition (ISA) and stent thrombosis, but the mechanism explaining this association remains unclear. Whether the neointimal coverage of nonapposed side-branch and ISA struts is delayed with respect to well-apposed struts is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Optical coherence tomography studies from 178 stents implanted in 99 patients from 2 randomized trials were analyzed at 9 to 13 months of follow-up. The sample included 38 sirolimus-eluting, 33 biolimus-eluting, 57 everolimus-eluting, and 50 zotarolimus-eluting stents. Optical coherence tomography coverage of nonapposed side-branch and ISA struts was compared with well-apposed struts of the same stent by statistical pooled analysis with a random-effects model. A total of 34 120 struts were analyzed. The risk ratio of delayed coverage was 9.00 (95% confidence interval, 6.58 to 12.32) for nonapposed side-branch versus well-apposed struts, 9.10 (95% confidence interval, 7.34 to 11.28) for ISA versus well-apposed struts, and 1.73 (95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 2.23) for ISA versus nonapposed side-branch struts. Heterogeneity of the effect was observed in the comparison of ISA versus well-apposed struts (H=1.27; I(2)=38.40) but not in the other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS Coverage of ISA and nonapposed side-branch struts is delayed with respect to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents, as assessed by optical coherence tomography. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00389220, NCT00617084.

Long-Term Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. METHODS Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.