Nobuyuki Horita

Sensitivity and specificity of the Streptococcus pneumoniae urinary antigen test for unconcentrated urine from adult patients with pneumonia: A meta‐analysis

Studies on the sensitivity and specificity of the Binax Now Streptococcus pneumonia urinary antigen test (index test) show considerable variance of results. Those written in English provided sufficient original data to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the index test using unconcentrated urine to identify S. pneumoniae infection in adults with pneumonia. Reference tests were conducted with at least one culture and/or smear. We estimated sensitivity and two specificities. One was the specificity evaluated using only patients with pneumonia of identified other aetiologies (‘specificity (other)’). The other was the specificity evaluated based on both patients with pneumonia of unknown aetiology and those with pneumonia of other aetiologies (‘specificity (unknown and other)’) using a fixed model for meta‐analysis. We found 10 articles involving 2315 patients. The analysis of 10 studies involving 399 patients yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.71–0.79) without heterogeneity or publication bias. The analysis of six studies involving 258 patients yielded a pooled specificity (other) of 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.92–0.98) without no heterogeneity or publication bias. We attempted to conduct a meta‐analysis with the 10 studies involving 1916 patients to estimate specificity (unknown and other), but it remained unclear due to moderate heterogeneity and possible publication bias. In our meta‐analysis, sensitivity of the index test was moderate and specificity (other) was high; however, the specificity (unknown and other) remained unclear.

Adjunctive Systemic Corticosteroids for Hospitalized Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2015 Update

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, the results from them had large discrepancies. The eligibility criteria for the current meta-analysis were original RCTs written in English as a full article that evaluated adjunctive systemic corticosteroids adding on antibiotic therapy targeting typical and/or atypical pathogen for treating hospitalized human CAP cases. Four investigators independently searched for eligible articles through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Random model was used. The heterogeneity among original studies and subgroups was evaluated with the I2 statistics. Of 54 articles that met the preliminary criteria, we found 10 eligible RCTs comprising 1780 cases. Our analyses revealed following pooled values by corticosteroids. OR for all-cause death: 0.80 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.53–1.21) from all studies; 0.41 (95% CI 0.19–0.90) from severe-case subgroup; 0.21 (95% CI 0.0–0.74) from intensive care unit (ICU) subgroup. Length of ICU stay: −1.30 days (95% CI (−3.04)−0.44). Length of hospital stay: −0.98 days (95% CI (−1.26)–(−0.71)). Length to clinical stability: −1.16 days (95% CI (−1.73)–(−0.58)). Serious complications do not seem to largely increase by steroids. In conclusion, adjunctive systemic corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with CAP seems preferred strategies.

Statins reduce all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BackgroundRecent observational studies have suggested that use of statins reduces mortality in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, no meta-analysis has reported the pooled hazard ratio of statins to all-cause mortality.MethodsWe searched for eligible articles using five databases. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies written in English using original data reporting the hazard ratio of statins to all-cause, cardiovascular-related, cancer-related, or respiratory-related mortality. A fixed model with the confidence interval method was used. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Begg’s test, and was corrected using Duval’s trim and fill method. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.ResultsWe included 10 out of 128 articles. The pooled hazard ratio of statins to all-cause mortality involving 16269 patients was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.75-0.86, P < 0.001) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 52%, P = 0.032). The sensitivity analysis and funnel plot suggested the existence of publication bias. After three possibly unpublished cohorts were imputed, the pooled hazard ratio of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88, P < 0.001) still suggested a favorable prognosis in statin-treated patients. The pooled hazard ratio of statins to cardiovascular-related, cancer-related, and respiratory-related mortality were 0.52 (95% CI: 0.27-1.01, P = 0.052), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.32-1.01, P = 0.056), and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.43-0.78, P < 0.001), respectively, although these results were not conclusive as we could not find a sufficient number of original studies dealing with those forms of mortality.ConclusionsThe use of statins for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may reduce all-cause mortality. This conclusion should be re-evaluated by a registered large-scale randomized controlled trial.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist + long-acting beta agonist versus long-acting beta agonist + inhaled corticosteroid for COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Some trials have been conducted to compare long‐acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) + long‐acting beta agonist (LABA) versus LABA + inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but no meta‐analysis were reported.

Genetic model selection for a case-control study and a meta-analysis.

A case–control study often compares the prevalence of a specific disease among persons with normal alleles and persons with variant alleles, which generates an odds ratio (OR). The most common type of allele variation, single-nucleotide polymorphism, consists of a major allele (M) and a minor allele (m). Thus, the genotype can be a major allele homozygote (MM), a heterozygote (Mm) or a minor allele homozygote (mm). Odds are given for each genotype, and a pair of odds generates an OR. Summarizing data using two-by-two contingency is the simplest method of estimating an OR. Thus, dominant, multiplicative, recessive, and over-dominant models are often used. Traditionally, researchers used to calculate ORs using many models and then select the best model from among these calculated ORs. This may cause problems due to multiple comparisons. Therefore, we should choose the best model before calculating the OR for each model. In this article, we will discuss how to choose the best model among many subject-level models when evaluating the impact of the MM/Mm/mm genotype on the disease prevalence.

Diagnostic test accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic test accuracy of the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for culture proven tuberculosis is unclear. We searched electronic databases for both cohort and case-control studies that provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The index test was any LAMP assay including both commercialized kits and in-house assays. Culture-proven M. tuberculosis was considered a positive reference test. We included 26 studies on 9330 sputum samples and one study on 315 extra-pulmonary specimens. For sputum samples, 26 studies yielded the summary estimates of sensitivity of 89.6% (95% CI 85.6–92.6%), specificity of 94.0% (95% CI 91.0–96.1%), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 145 (95% CI 93–226). Nine studies focusing on Loopamp MTBC yielded the summary estimates of sensitivity of 80.9% (95% CI 76.0–85.1%) and specificity of 96.5% (95% CI 94.7–97.7%). Loopamp MTBC had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for smear-positive sputa compared to smear-negative sputa. In-house assays showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared to Loopamp MTBC. LAMP promises to be a useful test for the diagnosis of TB, however there is still need to improve the assay to make it simpler, cheaper and more efficient to make it competitive against other PCR methods already available.

Role of combined indacaterol and glycopyrronium bromide (QVA149) for the treatment of COPD in Japan

Once-daily dual-bronchodilator therapy with combined indacaterol and glycopyrronium bromide in one device (Ultibro, Breezhaler), often called QVA149, was first approved in 2013 in Japan and Europe. As of November 2014, more than 40 countries had approved this medication except for the USA. This is the first dual bronchodilator in one device. Now, the Breezhaler is the only device that can provide long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrronium bromide), long-acting beta agonist (indacaterol), and a combination of the two medications (QVA149). The choice among the three medications allows a patient to use the same inhalation device even when the regimen is changed from single-bronchodilator therapy to dual-bronchodilator therapy. In addition, the quick bronchodilation effect and once-daily administration can improve patient adherence to medical treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To our knowledge, as of November 2014, the safety and the efficacy of QVA149 have been evaluated in 14 randomized controlled trials. The 14 trials generally showed good safety profiles, and there were better or not-inferior bronchodilator effects of QVA149 when compared with placebo, or other inhaled medication. According to the Japanese Respiratory Society guidelines, QVA149 is a combination of the two first-line bronchodilators. Our meta-analysis indicated that QVA149 is superior to the salmeterol–fluticasone combination to treat COPD in respect of the frequency of adverse effects, exacerbation, pneumonia, and improvement of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Thus, we believe that QVA149 can be a key medication for COPD treatments.

Decreased activities of daily living is a strong risk factor for liver injury by anti-tuberculosis drugs

We evaluated the association between activities of daily living and drug‐induced liver injury by anti‐tuberculosis drugs.

Topotecan for Relapsed Small-cell Lung Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1347 Patients

Topotecan is the most reliable chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). The efficacy and adverse effects of topotecan as reported by previous studies varied greatly. The inclusion criterion was a prospective study that was able to provide data for 6-month over-all survival (OS) rate, 1-year OS rate, objective responses, and/or adverse effects of single agent topotecan as a second line chemotherapy for SCLC, written in English language as a full article. Any topotecan regimen were allowed. Binary data were meta-analyzed with the random-model generic inverse variance method. We included 14 articles consisted of 1347 patients. Pooled values were estimated as follows. Six-month OS rate: 37% (95% CI: 28–46%). One-year OS rate: 9% (95% CI: 5–13%). Response rate: 5% (95% CI: 1–8%). Six-month OS rate: 57% (95% CI: 50–64%). One-year OS rate: 27% (95% CI: 22–32%). Response rate: 17% (95% CI: 11–23%). Grade III/IV neutropenia 69% (95% CI: 58–80%). Grade III/IV thrombopenia 41% (95% CI: 34–48%). Grade III/IV anemia 24% (95% CI: 17–30%). Non-hematorogical events were rare. Chemotherapy-related death 2% (95% CI: 1–3%). In conclusion, Topotecan provided a possibly promising outcome for sensitive-relapse SCLC and poor outcome for refractory relapse SCLC. Adverse events were mainly hematological.

Vitamin D binding protein genotype variants and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta‐analysis

Genetic susceptibility for development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is under intensive investigation. Among the three alleles of vitamin D binding protein, or group‐specific (GC) components, some have suggested that having GC‐1F and GC‐2 alleles was associated with a risk of COPD. Although previous studies have shown considerable variance, no meta‐analysis has been conducted.