Gemcitabine and carboplatin in intensively pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

Background: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are increasingly exposed to anthracyclines and taxanes either during treatment of primary breast cancer or during initial therapy of metastatic disease. The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin was therefore investigated as an anthracycline- and taxane-free treatment option. Patients and Methods: MBC patients previously treated with chemotherapy were enrolled in a multicenter phase II study. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8) and carboplatin (AUC 4 i.v. on day 1) applied every 3 weeks. Results: Thirty-nine patients were recruited, and a total of 207 treatment cycles were applied with a median of 5 cycles per patient. One complete response and 11 partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 31% (95% CI: 17-48%). Twelve patients (31%) had stable disease. Median time to progression was 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.6-6.7 months) and median overall survival from start of treatment was 13.2 months (95% CI: 8.7-16.7 months). Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity included leukopenia (59%/5%), thrombo-cytopenia (26%/23%) and anemia (10%/0%). Nonhematological toxicity was rarely severe. Conclusion: Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and carboplatin is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for intensively pretreated patients with MBC. Due to a considerable incidence of severe thrombocytopenia it would be reasonable to consider starting gemcitabine at the lower dose level of 800 mg/m(2). Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic

Public health and social measures (PHSM) have been central to the COVID‐19 response. Consequently, there has been much pressure on decision‐makers to make evidence‐informed decisions and on researchers to synthesize the evidence regarding these measures. This article describes our experiences, responses and lessons learnt regarding key challenges when planning and conducting rapid reviews of PHSM during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Stakeholder consultations and scoping reviews to obtain an overview of the evidence inform the scope of reviews that are policy‐relevant and feasible. Multiple complementary reviews serve to examine the benefits and harms of PHSM across different populations and contexts. Conceiving reviews of effectiveness as adaptable living reviews helps to respond to evolving evidence needs and an expanding evidence base. An appropriately skilled review team and good planning, coordination and communication ensures smooth and rigorous processes and efficient use of resources. Scientific rigor, the practical implications of PHSM‐related complexity and likely time savings should be carefully weighed in deciding on methodological shortcuts. Making the best possible use of modeling studies represents a particular challenge, and methods should be carefully chosen, piloted and implemented. Our experience raises questions regarding the nature of rapid reviews and regarding how different types of evidence should be considered in making decisions about PHSM during a global pandemic. We highlight the need for readily available protocols for conducting studies on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and implementation of PHSM in a timely manner, as well as the need for rapid review standards tailored to “rapid” versus “emergency” mode reviewing

Background paper to the recommendation for routine rotavirus vaccination of infants in Germany

Two rotavirus (RV) vaccines were introduced to the European market in 2006. To support the decision-making process of the German Standing Committee on Vaccination ("Ständige Impfkommission", STIKO) regarding adoption of routine RV vaccination into the national vaccination schedule in Germany relevant scientific background was reviewed. According to STIKO’s Standard Operating Procedures for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations, a set of key questions was addressed and systematic reviews were performed with a focus on the efficacy, effectiveness, impact and safety of RV vaccines. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess the quality of available evidence. Data from 5 randomized controlled trials demonstrated a high efficacy of RV vaccines in preventing severe RV-associated gastroenteritis (91%) and hospitalization (92%) in settings comparable to Germany. Post-marketing observational studies confirmed these findings. In several countries, impact studies suggest that age groups not eligible for vaccination might also benefit from herd effects and demonstrated a decrease in the number of nosocomial RV infections after RV vaccine introduction. The vaccines were considered safe, except for a slightly increased risk of intussusception shortly after the first dose, corresponding to 1-2 additional cases per 100,000 infants vaccinated (relative risk =1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-2.14). RV case-fatality is extremely low in Germany. However, RV incidence among children age

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: Understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

This is the final version. Available from BMC via the DOI in this record. Additional materials are available on the GRADE-CERQual website (www.cerqual.org).Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. Methods: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. Results: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. Conclusions: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses.WHONorad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)Research Council of NorwayCochrane Methods Innovation FundSouth African Medical Research Counci

GRADE guidelines 17:Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence

Objective: To provide GRADE guidance for assessing risk of bias across an entire body of evidence consequent on missing data for systematic reviews of both binary and continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: Systematic survey of published methodological research, iterative discussions, testing in systematic reviews, and feedback from the GRADE Working Group. Results: Approaches begin with a primary meta-analysis using a complete case analysis followed by sensitivity meta-analyses imputing, in each study, data for those with missing data, and then pooling across studies. For binary outcomes, we suggest use of "plausible worst case" in which review authors assume that those with missing data in treatment arms have proportionally higher event rates than those followed successfully. For continuous outcomes, imputed mean values come from other studies within the systematic review and the standard deviation (SD) from the median SDs of the control arms of all studies. Conclusions: If the results of the primary meta-analysis are robust to the most extreme assumptions viewed as plausible, one does not rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias due to missing participant outcome data. If the results prove not robust to plausible assumptions, one would rate down certainty in the evidence for risk of bias.</p

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. METHODS: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. RESULTS: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed

Gemcitabine and carboplatin in intensively pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

Background: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are increasingly exposed to anthracyclines and taxanes either during treatment of primary breast cancer or during initial therapy of metastatic disease. The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin was therefore investigated as an anthracycline- and taxane-free treatment option. Patients and Methods: MBC patients previously treated with chemotherapy were enrolled in a multicenter phase II study. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8) and carboplatin (AUC 4 i.v. on day 1) applied every 3 weeks. Results: Thirty-nine patients were recruited, and a total of 207 treatment cycles were applied with a median of 5 cycles per patient. One complete response and 11 partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 31% (95% CI: 17-48%). Twelve patients (31%) had stable disease. Median time to progression was 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.6-6.7 months) and median overall survival from start of treatment was 13.2 months (95% CI: 8.7-16.7 months). Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity included leukopenia (59%/5%), thrombo-cytopenia (26%/23%) and anemia (10%/0%). Nonhematological toxicity was rarely severe. Conclusion: Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and carboplatin is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for intensively pretreated patients with MBC. Due to a considerable incidence of severe thrombocytopenia it would be reasonable to consider starting gemcitabine at the lower dose level of 800 mg/m(2). Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworksa systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

El trabajo en este artículo ha sido financiado en parte por el Programa FP7 de la Comisión Europea (acuerdo de subvención 258583) como parte del proyecto DECIDE. La responsabilidad recae exclusivamente sobre los autores; la Comisión Europea no se hace responsable del uso que se dé a la información contenida en este manuscrito. The work on this article has been funded in part by the European Commission's FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. The responsibility rests exclusively with the authors; The European Commission is not responsible for the use made of the information contained in this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol