Germán Málaga

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study

BACKGROUND Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. We sought to quantify the importance of potentially modifiable risk factors for stroke in different regions of the world, and in key populations and primary pathological subtypes of stroke. METHODS We completed a standardised international case-control study in 32 countries in Asia, America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East, and Africa. Cases were patients with acute first stroke (within 5 days of symptom onset and 72 h of hospital admission). Controls were hospital-based or community-based individuals with no history of stroke, and were matched with cases, recruited in a 1:1 ratio, for age and sex. All participants completed a clinical assessment and were requested to provide blood and urine samples. Odds ratios (OR) and their population attributable risks (PARs) were calculated, with 99% confidence intervals. FINDINGS Between Jan 11, 2007, and Aug 8, 2015, 26 919 participants were recruited from 32 countries (13 447 cases [10 388 with ischaemic stroke and 3059 intracerebral haemorrhage] and 13 472 controls). Previous history of hypertension or blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or higher (OR 2·98, 99% CI 2·72-3·28; PAR 47·9%, 99% CI 45·1-50·6), regular physical activity (0·60, 0·52-0·70; 35·8%, 27·7-44·7), apolipoprotein (Apo)B/ApoA1 ratio (1·84, 1·65-2·06 for highest vs lowest tertile; 26·8%, 22·2-31·9 for top two tertiles vs lowest tertile), diet (0·60, 0·53-0·67 for highest vs lowest tertile of modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index [mAHEI]; 23·2%, 18·2-28·9 for lowest two tertiles vs highest tertile of mAHEI), waist-to-hip ratio (1·44, 1·27-1·64 for highest vs lowest tertile; 18·6%, 13·3-25·3 for top two tertiles vs lowest), psychosocial factors (2·20, 1·78-2·72; 17·4%, 13·1-22·6), current smoking (1·67, 1·49-1·87; 12·4%, 10·2-14·9), cardiac causes (3·17, 2·68-3·75; 9·1%, 8·0-10·2), alcohol consumption (2·09, 1·64-2·67 for high or heavy episodic intake vs never or former drinker; 5·8%, 3·4-9·7 for current alcohol drinker vs never or former drinker), and diabetes mellitus (1·16, 1·05-1·30; 3·9%, 1·9-7·6) were associated with all stroke. Collectively, these risk factors accounted for 90·7% of the PAR for all stroke worldwide (91·5% for ischaemic stroke, 87·1% for intracerebral haemorrhage), and were consistent across regions (ranging from 82·7% in Africa to 97·4% in southeast Asia), sex (90·6% in men and in women), and age groups (92·2% in patients aged ≤55 years, 90·0% in patients aged >55 years). We observed regional variations in the importance of individual risk factors, which were related to variations in the magnitude of ORs (rather than direction, which we observed for diet) and differences in prevalence of risk factors among regions. Hypertension was more associated with intracerebral haemorrhage than with ischaemic stroke, whereas current smoking, diabetes, apolipoproteins, and cardiac causes were more associated with ischaemic stroke (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION Ten potentially modifiable risk factors are collectively associated with about 90% of the PAR of stroke in each major region of the world, among ethnic groups, in men and women, and in all ages. However, we found important regional variations in the relative importance of most individual risk factors for stroke, which could contribute to worldwide variations in frequency and case-mix of stroke. Our findings support developing both global and region-specific programmes to prevent stroke. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Health Research Board Ireland, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland (Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MSD, Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, and The Stroke Association, with support from The UK Stroke Research Network.

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.

Clonidine in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

Objective To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligibility criteria Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs. Data collection and analysis Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis. Results 60 studies (n=353 639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33 350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320 289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13). Conclusions The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

Objectives To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure. Data collection and analysis Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68 775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1 777 358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15 701 v 33/12 591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18 554 v 552/18 474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use. Conclusions The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use.

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.

Autogenous versus prosthetic vascular access for hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES The autogenous arteriovenous access for chronic hemodialysis is recommended over the prosthetic access because of its longer lifespan. However, more than half of the United States dialysis patients receive a prosthetic access. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the best available evidence comparing the two accesses types in terms of patient-important outcomes. METHODS We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and SCOPUS) and included randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies. We pooled data for each outcome using a random effects model to estimate the relative risk (RR) and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI). We estimated inconsistency caused by true differences between studies using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS Eighty-three studies, of which 80 were nonrandomized, met eligibility criteria. Compared with the prosthetic access, the autogenous access was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; I(2) = 48%, 27 studies) and access infection (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; I(2) = 93%, 43 studies), and a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of postoperative complications (hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm and steal syndrome, RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; I(2) = 65%, 31 studies) and length of hospitalization (pooled weighted mean difference -3.8 days; 95% CI, -7.8 to 0.2; P = .06). The autogenous access also had better primary and secondary patency at 12 and 36 months. CONCLUSION Low-quality evidence from inconsistent studies with limited protection against bias shows that autogenous access for chronic hemodialysis is superior to prosthetic access.

Association of Postoperative High-Sensitivity Troponin Levels With Myocardial Injury and 30-Day Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

Importance Little is known about the relationship between perioperative high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) measurements and 30-day mortality and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS). Objective To determine the association between perioperative hsTnT measurements and 30-day mortality and potential diagnostic criteria for MINS (ie, myocardial injury due to ischemia associated with 30-day mortality). Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective cohort study of patients aged 45 years or older who underwent inpatient noncardiac surgery and had a postoperative hsTnT measurement. Starting in October 2008, participants were recruited at 23 centers in 13 countries; follow-up finished in December 2013. Exposures Patients had hsTnT measurements 6 to 12 hours after surgery and daily for 3 days; 40.4% had a preoperative hsTnT measurement. Main Outcomes and Measures A modified Mazumdar approach (an iterative process) was used to determine if there were hsTnT thresholds associated with risk of death and had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 3.0 or higher and a risk of 30-day mortality of 3% or higher. To determine potential diagnostic criteria for MINS, regression analyses ascertained if postoperative hsTnT elevations required an ischemic feature (eg, ischemic symptom or electrocardiography finding) to be associated with 30-day mortality. Results Among 21 842 participants, the mean age was 63.1 (SD, 10.7) years and 49.1% were female. Death within 30 days after surgery occurred in 266 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with the reference group (peak hsTnT <5 ng/L), peak postoperative hsTnT levels of 20 to less than 65 ng/L, 65 to less than 1000 ng/L, and 1000 ng/L or higher had 30-day mortality rates of 3.0% (123/4049; 95% CI, 2.6%-3.6%), 9.1% (102/1118; 95% CI, 7.6%-11.0%), and 29.6% (16/54; 95% CI, 19.1%-42.8%), with corresponding adjusted HRs of 23.63 (95% CI, 10.32-54.09), 70.34 (95% CI, 30.60-161.71), and 227.01 (95% CI, 87.35-589.92), respectively. An absolute hsTnT change of 5 ng/L or higher was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 4.69; 95% CI, 3.52-6.25). An elevated postoperative hsTnT (ie, 20 to <65 ng/L with an absolute change ≥5 ng/L or hsTnT ≥65 ng/L) without an ischemic feature was associated with 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.37-4.32). Among the 3904 patients (17.9%; 95% CI, 17.4%-18.4%) with MINS, 3633 (93.1%; 95% CI, 92.2%-93.8%) did not experience an ischemic symptom. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, peak postoperative hsTnT during the first 3 days after surgery was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Elevated postoperative hsTnT without an ischemic feature was also associated with 30-day mortality.

Body composition and quality of life in adults treated with GH therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE To summarise the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using GH in adults with GH deficiency focusing on quality of life and body composition. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus through April 2011. We also reviewed reference lists and contacted experts to identify candidate studies. STUDY SELECTION Reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared GH to placebo. DATA SYNTHESIS We pooled the relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) by the random effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS Fifty-four RCTs were included enrolling over 3400 patients. The quality of the included trials was fair. GH use was associated with statistically significant reduction in weight (WMD, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -2.31 kg, -2.66 and -1.96) and body fat content (WMD, 95% CI: -2.56 kg, -2.97 and -2.16); increase in lean body mass (WMD, 95% CI: 1.38, 1.10 and 1.65), the risk of oedema (RR, 95% CI: 6.07, 4.34 and 8.48) and joint stiffness (RR, 95% CI: 4.17, 1.4 and 12.38); without significant changes in body mass index, bone mineral density or other adverse effects. Quality of life measures improved in 11 of the 16 trials although meta-analysis was not feasible. RESULTS GH therapy in adults with confirmed GH deficiency reduces weight and body fat, increases lean body mass and increases oedema and joint stiffness. Most trials demonstrated improvement in quality of life measures.