Filip Mejza

Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Objective To investigate the credibility of authors’ claims of subgroup effects using a representative sample of recently published randomised controlled trials. Design Systematic review. Data source Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine, in Medline. Study selection Randomised controlled trials published in 2007. Using prespecified criteria, teams of trained reviewers independently judged whether authors claimed subgroup effects and the strength of their claims. Reviewers assessed each of these claims against 10 predefined criteria, developed through a search of existing criteria and a consensus process. Results Of 207 randomised controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses, 64 (31%) made claims for the primary outcome. Of those, 20 were strong claims and 28 claims of a likely effect. Authors included subgroup variables measured at baseline in 60 (94%) trials, used subgroup variable as a stratification factor at randomisation in 13 (20%), clearly prespecified their hypotheses in 26 (41%), correctly prespecified direction in 4 (6%), tested a small number of hypotheses in 28 (44%), carried out a test of interaction that proved statistically significant in 6 (9%), documented replication of a subgroup effect with previous related studies in 21 (33%), identified consistency of a subgroup effect across related outcomes in 19 (30%), and provided a compelling indirect evidence for the effect in 14 (22%). In the 19 trials making more than one claim, only one (5%) checked the independence of the interaction. Of the 64 claims, 54 (84%) met four or fewer of the 10 criteria. For strong claims, more than 50% failed each of the individual criteria, and only three (15%) met more than five criteria. Conclusion Authors often claim subgroup effects in their trial report. However, the credibility of subgroup effects, even when claims are strong, is usually low. Users of the information should treat claims that fail to meet most criteria with scepticism. Trial researchers should report the conduct of subgroup analyses and provide sufficient evidence when claiming a subgroup effect or suggesting a possible effect.

The Safety of Long-Acting β-Agonists among Patients with Asthma Using Inhaled Corticosteroids

RATIONALE Inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), when used as monotherapy in asthma, may increase asthma-related hospitalizations, life threatening events requiring intubation/mechanical ventilation, and asthma-related deaths, but concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may modify this effect. OBJECTIVES To determine the safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using corticosteroids. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of parallel-group, blinded, randomized, controlled trials with at least 12 weeks of treatment addressing the impact of LABA on asthma-related and total morbidity and mortality in patients concomitantly using ICS. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, and Cochrane (Central) databases, and contacted authors and sponsors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We used a random effects model to pool results from different studies as odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) (OR < 1.0 favors LABA). The search yielded 62 relevant studies included in this analysis. Among over 29,000 participants (15,710 taking LABA, with over 8,000 patient-years observed in the LABA groups), there were three asthma-related deaths and two asthma-related, nonfatal intubations (all in LABA groups; <or= one event per study). Differences in asthma-related hospitalizations (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03) and asthma-related serious adverse events (mostly hospitalizations; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03) failed to reach statistical significance. The OR for total mortality was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.58-2.74), reflecting 14 deaths in LABA groups and eight deaths in control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with asthma using ICS, LABA did not increase the risk of asthma-related hospitalizations. There were very few asthma-related deaths and intubations, and events were too infrequent to establish LABAs relative effect on these outcomes.

The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Objective To investigate the impact of industry funding on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline. Study selection Randomised controlled trials published in 118 core clinical journals (defined by the National Library of Medicine) in 2007. 1140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio by high (five general medicine journals with largest number of total citations in 2007) versus lower impact journals, were randomly sampled. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, used standardised, piloted forms to screen study reports for eligibility and to extract data. They also used explicit criteria to determine whether a randomised controlled trial reported subgroup analyses. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with reporting versus not reporting of subgroup analyses. Results 469 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 207 (44%) reported subgroup analyses. High impact journals (adjusted odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval 1.62 to 4.33), non-surgical (versus surgical) trials (2.10, 1.26 to 3.50), and larger sample size (3.38, 1.64 to 6.99) were associated with more frequent reporting of subgroup analyses. The strength of association between trial funding and reporting of subgroups differed in trials with and without statistically significant primary outcomes (interaction P=0.02). In trials without statistically significant results for the primary outcome, industry funded trials were more likely to report subgroup analyses (2.29, 1.30 to 4.72) than non-industry funded trials. This was not true for trials with a statistically significant primary outcome (0.79, 0.46 to 1.36). Industry funded trials were associated with less frequent prespecification of subgroup hypotheses (31.3% v 38.0%, adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 0.26 to 0.94), and less use of the interaction test for analyses of subgroup effects (41.4% v 49.1%, 0.52, 0.28 to 0.97) than non-industry funded trials. Conclusion Industry funded randomised controlled trials, in the absence of statistically significant primary outcomes, are more likely to report subgroup analyses than non-industry funded trials. Industry funded trials less frequently prespecify subgroup hypotheses and less frequently test for interaction than non-industry funded trials. Subgroup analyses from industry funded trials with negative results for the primary outcome should be viewed with caution.

Clinical and genetic features underlying the response of patients with bronchial asthma to treatment with a leukotriene receptor antagonist.

Background Treatment with antileukotriene drugs results in clinical improvement in many, though not all, patients with asthma. It can be hypothesized that the subpopulation of asthmatic patients, characterized by aspirin intolerance and cysteinyl‐leukotriene overproduction, might profit most from antileukotriene treatment.

Case-finding options for COPD: results from the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study.

This study aimed to compare strategies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) case finding using data from the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Population-based samples of adults aged ≥40 yrs (n = 9,390) from 14 countries completed a questionnaire and spirometry. We compared the screening efficiency of differently staged algorithms that used questionnaire data and/or peak expiratory flow (PEF) data to identify persons at risk for COPD and, hence, needing confirmatory spirometry. Separate algorithms were fitted for moderate/severe COPD and for severe COPD. We estimated the cost of each algorithm in 1,000 people. For moderate/severe COPD, use of questionnaire data alone permitted high sensitivity (97%) but required confirmatory spirometry in 80% of participants. Use of PEF necessitated confirmatory spirometry in only 19–22% of subjects, with 83–84% sensitivity. For severe COPD, use of PEF achieved 91–93% sensitivity, requiring confirmatory spirometry in <9% of participants. Cost analysis suggested that a staged screening algorithm using only PEF initially, followed by confirmatory spirometry as needed, was the most cost-effective case-finding strategy. Our results support the use of PEF as a simple, cost-effective initial screening tool for conducting COPD case-finding in adults aged ≥40 yrs. These findings should be validated in real-world settings such as the primary care environment.

Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis

OBJECTIVE To compare methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in higher vs. lower impact Core Clinical Journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched MEDLINE for RCTs published in 2007 in Core Clinical Journals. We randomly sampled 1,140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio in higher (five general medicine journals with the highest total citations in 2007) and lower impact journals. RESULTS Four hundred sixty-nine RCTs proved eligible: 219 in higher and 250 in lower impact journals. RCTs in higher vs. lower impact journals had larger sample sizes (median, 285 vs. 39), were more likely to receive industry funding (53% vs. 28%), declare concealment of allocation (66% vs. 36%), declare blinding of health care providers (53% vs. 41%) and outcome adjudicators (72% vs. 54%), report a patient-important primary outcome (69% vs. 50%), report subgroup analyses (64% vs. 26%), prespecify subgroup hypotheses (42% vs. 20%), and report a test for interaction (54% vs. 27%); P < 0.05 for all differences. CONCLUSION RCTs published in higher impact journals were more likely to report methodological safeguards against bias and patient-important outcomes than those published in lower impact journals. However, sufficient limitations remain such that publication in a higher impact journal does not ensure low risk of bias.

Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials.

BackgroundSubgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses and a number of important questions remain unanswered. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the reporting of subgroup analyses and claims of subgroup effects in randomized controlled trials, 2) to assess study characteristics associated with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects, and 3) to examine the analysis, and interpretation of subgroup effects for each studys primary outcome.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of 464 randomized controlled human trials published in 2007 in the 118 Core Clinical Journals defined by the National Library of Medicine. We will randomly select journal articles, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by higher impact versus lower impact journals. According to 2007 ISI total citations, we consider the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and BMJ as higher impact journals. Teams of two reviewers will independently screen full texts of reports for eligibility, and abstract data, using standardized, pilot-tested extraction forms. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of pre-specified study characteristics with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects for the primary and any other outcomes.DiscussionA clear understanding of subgroup analyses, as currently conducted and reported in published randomized controlled trials, will reveal both strengths and weaknesses of this practice. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses, and claim and interpretation of subgroup effects in randomized trials.

Effects of Cyclooxygenases Inhibitors on Vasoactive Prostanoids and Thrombin Generation at the Site of Microvascular Injury in Healthy Men

Objective—Balance between vasoactive prostanoids that contribute to homeostasis of the circulatory system can be affected by cyclooxygenases inhibitors. Results of a recent large clinical trial show that myocardial infarction was more frequent among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor rofecoxib compared with those treated with naproxen. Whether this difference was attributable to deleterious cardiovascular effects of rofecoxib or cardioprotective effects of naproxen has not been determined. We tested the hypothesis that naproxen, contrary to rofecoxib, exerts antithrombotic effects. Methods and Results—Forty-five healthy men were randomized to receive a 7-day treatment with rofecoxib (50 mg/d), naproxen (1000 mg/d), aspirin (75 mg/d), or diclofenac (150 mg/d). Formation of thromboxane, prostacyclin, and thrombin in the bleeding-time blood at the site of standardized microvascular injury was assessed before and after treatment. Naproxen, like aspirin, caused significant reduction of both thromboxane and prostacyclin, whereas diclofenac depressed prostacyclin synthesis but had no effect on tromboxane formation. Naproxen and aspirin significantly suppressed thrombin generation. Diclofenac showed a similar tendency, which did not reach statistical significance. Rofecoxib had no effect on any variables measured. Conclusions—In healthy men, naproxen exerts an antithrombotic effect at least as potent as aspirin, whereas rofecoxib does not affect hemostatic balance.

Worldwide patterns of bronchodilator responsiveness: results from the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study

Rationale Criteria for a clinically significant bronchodilator response (BDR) are mainly based on studies in patients with obstructive lung diseases. Little is known about the BDR in healthy general populations, and even less about the worldwide patterns. Methods 10 360 adults aged 40 years and older from 14 countries in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia participated in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Spirometry was used before and after an inhaled bronchodilator to determine the distribution of the BDR in population-based samples of healthy non-smokers and individuals with airflow obstruction. Results In 3922 healthy never smokers, the weighted pooled estimate of the 95th percentiles (95% CI) for bronchodilator response were 284 ml (263 to 305) absolute change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s from baseline (ΔFEV1); 12.0% (11.2% to 12.8%) change relative to initial value (%ΔFEV1i); and 10.0% (9.5% to 10.5%) change relative to predicted value (%ΔFEV1p). The corresponding mean changes in forced vital capacity (FVC) were 322 ml (271 to 373) absolute change from baseline (ΔFVC); 10.5% (8.9% to 12.0%) change relative to initial value (ΔFVCi); and 9.2% (7.9% to 10.5%) change relative to predicted value (ΔFVCp). The proportion who exceeded the above threshold values in the subgroup with spirometrically defined Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 2 and higher (FEV1/FVC <0.7 and FEV1% predicted <80%) were 11.1%, 30.8% and 12.9% respectively for the FEV1-based thresholds and 22.6%, 28.6% and 22.1% respectively for the FVC-based thresholds. Conclusions The results provide reference values for bronchodilator responses worldwide that confirm guideline estimates for a clinically significant level of BDR in bronchodilator testing.

Methodological rigor and reporting of clinical practice guidelines in patients with allergic rhinitis: QuGAR study

BACKGROUND There are several clinical practice guidelines about the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) being used by clinicians. OBJECTIVE We sought to assess the methodological rigor and transparency of reporting of clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE, the TRIP database, and professional society Web sites for all guidelines about the management of AR published in English after the year 2000. Four reviewers independently assessed the rigor of development and reporting of included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RESULTS Our search revealed 432 records, of which 34 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 10 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Overall methodological rigor and reporting of guidelines varied from fulfilling most of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II criteria to almost none. Across all guidelines, the best reported domain was clarity of presentation, and the least rigorously addressed domain was applicability of guidelines. Agreement beyond chance among the 4 appraisers was fair. CONCLUSIONS Guideline users should be aware of the difference in the rigor of development and quality of reporting of guidelines about the management of AR. They should choose higher-quality guidelines to use in their practice and teaching. For most reviewed guidelines, there is room for improvement, particularly in the domains of applicability and implementation.