Tsung Yu

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines

BackgroundRisk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases.MethodsWe searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences.ResultsWe identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences.ConclusionsOnly a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

Benefits and harms of roflumilast in moderate to severe COPD

Background Roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has been approved for the prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. It is unclear which patients will have a favourable benefit–harm balance with roflumilast. Our aim was to quantitatively assess the benefits and harms of roflumilast (500 µg/day) compared with placebo. Methods We used summary data released by the US Food and Drug Administration to estimate the treatment effects of roflumilast. Data from trials and observational studies were used to estimate the baseline risks for COPD exacerbations and gastrointestinal, neurological and psychiatric harms associated with roflumilast. Using simulation, we calculated the probability that roflumilast provides net benefit. We examined the impacts of different baseline risks for exacerbations and the severity of exacerbations, and varied weights (ie, relative importance) for outcomes and treated death as a competing risk in the analyses. Results The probability that roflumilast provides net benefit approximates 0% across different age categories of men and women with varying baseline risks for exacerbations. Using different weights for outcomes did not change the probability that roflumilast provides a net benefit. Only in the sensitivity analysis restricted to the prevention of severe exacerbations was there a probability of >50% that roflumilast provides a net benefit if the baseline risk of having at least one severe exacerbation per year exceeds 22%. Conclusions Our results suggest that roflumilast only provides a net benefit to patients at a high risk of severe exacerbations. Guideline developers should consider different recommendations for patients with COPD at different baseline risks for exacerbations.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. A benefit and harm analysis

Background Aspirin is widely used for prevention of cardiovascular disease. In recent years randomized trials also suggested a preventive effect for various types of cancer. We aimed to assess, in a quantitative way, benefits and harms of aspirin for primary prevention of both cardiovascular disease and cancer for a general US population between 40 and 85 years of age. Methods We used the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach for assessing benefits and harms. This approach provides a probability that a treatment is more beneficial than harmful and incorporates multiple outcomes, the importance of these outcomes, considers different outcome risks and treats mortality as a competing risk. Our main outcomes were the risks of seven types of cancer, myocardial infarction, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding. We obtained effect estimates from recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and used baseline risks from the Centers for Disease Control. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of different assumptions about outcome risks and preferences and considered the sampling variation of the effect estimates for aspirin. Results The main analysis as well as the sensitivity analyses showed that aspirin has more benefits than harms. In the main analysis, the index (positive if number of prevented events > excess number of harm events over 10 years per 1,000 persons) ranged from 2 (95% CI 0.0 to 11.8; in women age 45 to 54 years) to 8 (95% CI -0.1 to 83.7; in men age 65 to 74 years). In the sensitivity analyses, the index was also positive for all age categories suggesting more benefits than harms. Conclusion This study suggests an overall benefit of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer based on population-based data. For individual preventive counseling, additional benefit harm analyses should explore which individuals should or should not take aspirin based on their risk profile for cardiovascular, cancer and gastrointestinal outcomes and based on their outcome preferences. Thereby, risk-stratified and preference-sensitive prevention could become a reality.

Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians.

Purpose:To set priorities for new systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized clinical trials on the management of primary angle closure (PAC) using clinical practice guidelines and a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians. Methods:We restated the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s Preferred Practice Patterns recommendations for management of PAC into answerable clinical questions. We asked participants at the Asia-Pacific Joint Glaucoma Congress 2010 in Taipei to rate the importance of having an answer to each question for providing effective patient care, using a Likert-type scale and scoring from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (highly important). We identified relevant SRs and mapped the evidence to clinical questions to identify evidence gaps. Results:We generated 42 clinical questions. One hundred seventy-five individuals agreed to participate in the survey, 132 responded (75.4% response rate) and 96 completed the questionnaire (54.9% usable response rate). Questions rated important include laser iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure in primary angle-closure suspects, further therapies in eyes with plateau iris syndrome after laser iridotomy, and evaluation of the fellow eye in acute angle-closure patients for improving prognosis. Up-to-date and conclusive SR evidence was not available for any of the 42 clinical questions. Conclusions:We identified high priority clinical questions on the management of PAC, none of which had reliable SR evidence available. New SRs and randomized clinical trials can be initiated to address these evidence gaps.

Design, Analysis, and Reporting of Crossover Trials for Inclusion in a Meta-Analysis.

Randomized crossover trials are clinical experiments in which participants are assigned randomly to a sequence of treatments and each participant serves as his/her own control in estimating treatment effect. We need a better understanding of the validity of their results to enable recommendations as to which crossover trials can be included in meta-analysis and for development of reporting guidelines. Objective To evaluate the characteristics of the design, analysis, and reporting of crossover trials for inclusion in a meta-analysis of treatment for primary open-angle glaucoma and to provide empirical evidence to inform the development of tools to assess the validity of the results from crossover trials and reporting guidelines. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane’s CENTRAL register for randomized crossover trials for a systematic review and network meta-analysis we are conducting. Two individuals independently screened the search results for eligibility and abstracted data from each included report. Results We identified 83 crossover trials eligible for inclusion. Issues affecting the risk of bias in crossover trials, such as carryover, period effects and missing data, were often ignored. Some trials failed to accommodate the within-individual differences in the analysis. For a large proportion of the trials, the authors tabulated the results as if they arose from a parallel design. Precision estimates properly accounting for the paired nature of the design were often unavailable from the study reports; consequently, to include trial findings in a meta-analysis would require further manipulation and assumptions. Conclusions The high proportion of poorly reported analyses and results has the potential to affect whether crossover data should or can be included in a meta-analysis. There is pressing need for reporting guidelines for crossover trials.

Use of surrogate outcomes in US FDA drug approvals, 2003–2012: a survey

Objective To evaluate, across a spectrum of diseases, how often surrogate outcomes are used as a basis for drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and whether and how the rationale for using treatment effects on surrogates as predictors of treatment effects on patient-centred outcomes is discussed. Study design and setting We used the Drugs@FDA website to identify drug approvals produced from 2003 to 2012 by the FDA. We focused on four diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 1 or 2 diabetes, glaucoma and osteoporosis) for which surrogates are commonly used in trials. We reviewed the drug labels and medical reviews to provide empirical evidence on how surrogate outcomes are handled by the FDA. Results Of 1043 approvals screened, 58 (6%) were for the four diseases of interest. Most drugs for COPD (7/9, 78%), diabetes (26/26, 100%) and glaucoma (9/9, 100%) were approved based on surrogates while for osteoporosis, most drugs (10/14, 71%) were also approved for patient-centred outcomes (fractures). The rationale for using surrogates was discussed in 11 of the 43 (26%) drug approvals based on surrogates. In these drug approvals, we found drug approvals for diabetes are more likely than the other examined conditions to contain a discussion of trial evidence demonstrating that treatment effects on surrogate outcomes predict treatment effects on patient-centred outcomes. Conclusions Our results suggest that the FDA did not use a consistent approach to address surrogates in assessing the benefits and harms of drugs for COPD, type 1 or 2 diabetes, glaucoma and osteoporosis. For evaluating new drugs, patient-centred outcomes should be chosen whenever possible. If the use of surrogate outcomes is necessary, then a consistent approach is important to review the evidence for surrogacy and consider surrogates usage in the treatment and population under study.

Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD

BackgroundWhen faced with uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions regulatory agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers commonly ask for more research, and in particular for more randomized trials. The conduct of additional randomized trials is, however, sometimes not the most efficient way to reduce uncertainty. Instead, approaches such as value of information analysis or other approaches should be used to prioritize research that will most likely reduce uncertainty and inform decisions.DiscussionIn situations where additional research for specific interventions needs to be prioritized, we propose the use of quantitative benefit–harm assessments that illustrate how the benefit–harm balance may change as a consequence of additional research. The example of roflumilast for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease shows that additional research on patient preferences (e.g., how important are exacerbations relative to psychiatric harms?) or outcome risks (e.g., what is the incidence of psychiatric outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without treatment?) is sometimes more valuable than additional randomized trials.SummaryWe propose that quantitative benefit–harm assessments have the potential to explore the impact of additional research and to identify research priorities Our approach may be seen as another type of value of information analysis and as a useful approach to stimulate specific new research that has the potential to change current estimates of the benefit–harm balance and decision making.

All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies

Background Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce. Objectives To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging. Design We analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty. Results Twenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1–8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028). Limitations Detection and classification of limitations was – to some extent – subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements. Conclusions Reporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies.

Using a patient-centered approach to benefit-harm assessment in treatment decision-making: a case study in uveitis

Synthesizing evidence from comparative effectiveness trials can be difficult because multiple outcomes of different importance are to be considered. The goal of this study was to demonstrate an approach to conducting quantitative benefit–harm assessment that considers patient preferences.

Impact of Stressful Life Events on Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background: There is a general notion that stressful life events may cause mental and physical health problems. Objectives: We aimed to describe stressful life events reported by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to assess their impact on health outcomes and behaviors. Methods: Two hundred and sixty-six primary care patients who participated in the ICE COLD ERIC cohort study were asked to document any stressful life events in the past 3 years. We assessed the before-after (the event) changes for symptoms of depression and anxiety, health status, dyspnea-related quality of life, exacerbations, cigarette use, and physical activity. We used linear regression analysis to estimate the crude and adjusted magnitude of the before-after changes. Results: About 41% (110/266) of patients reported the experience of any stressful life events and “death of relatives/important persons” was most common (31%). After accounting for age, sex, living status, lung function, and anxiety/depression status at baseline, experiencing any stressful life events was associated with a 0.9-point increase on the depression scale (95% CI 0.3 to 1.4), a 0.8-point increase on the anxiety scale (95% CI 0.3 to 1.3), and a 0.8-point decrease in the physical activity score (95% CI –1.6 to 0). Conclusions: Experiencing stressful life events was associated with a small to moderate increase in symptoms of depression and anxiety in COPD, but no discernable effect was found for other physical outcomes. However, confirmation of these results in other COPD cohorts and identification of patients particularly vulnerable to stressful life events are needed.