Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Background Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease. Methods and Findings We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time. The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66). Conclusion Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research

Clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Switching between antipsychotic medications is common in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, data on clinical and economic outcomes from antipsychotic switching, in particular acute care service use, is fairly limited. The goal of this research was to assess the clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics during outpatient management of schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from a 1-year randomized, open-label cost-effectiveness study involving typical and atypical antipsychotics were assessed. The study protocol permitted switching of antipsychotics when clinically warranted. The risk of crisis-related events, use of acute-care services, and the time to the initial use of such services were determined in outpatients who switched antipsychotics compared with those who continued with their initial medications. Health care resource utilization data were abstracted from medical records and other sources (e.g., patient self-report), and direct costs were estimated using previously published benchmarks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Almost one-third of patients (29.3%) underwent a switch from their initial antipsychotic agent, with an average duration of 100 days before such treatment alterations. Compared with their counterparts who remained on their initial therapies, individuals who switched antipsychotics experienced a significantly higher risk of acute-care services, including hospitalization (p = .013) and crisis services (p = .011). Patients undergoing medication switches also used acute-care services significantly sooner (p = .004) and accrued an additional $3,000 (a 25% increase) in annual total health care costs per patient, most of which was due to acute-care expenditures.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Switching antipsychotic medications was found to be associated with considerably poorer clinical and economic outcomes, as reflected by, more frequent and more rapid use of acute-care services compared with persons remaining on their initial treatments.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Trial ID 2325 in LillyTrials.com (also accessible via ClinicalStudyResults.org).</p

Instrumental variable meta-analysis of individual patient data: application to adjust for treatment non-compliance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intention-to-treat (ITT) is the standard data analysis method which includes all patients regardless of receiving treatment. Although the aim of ITT analysis is to prevent bias due to prognostic dissimilarity, it is also a counter-intuitive type of analysis as it counts patients who did not receive treatment, and may lead to "bias toward the null." As treated (AT) method analyzes patients according to the treatment actually received rather than intended, but is affected by the selection bias. Both ITT and AT analyses can produce biased estimates of treatment effect, so instrumental variable (IV) analysis has been proposed as a technique to control for bias when using AT data. Our objective is to correct for bias in non-experimental data from previously published individual patient data meta-analysis by applying IV methods</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Center prescribing preference was used as an IV to assess the effects of methotrexate (MTX) in preventing debilitating complications of chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD) in patients who received peripheral blood stem cell (PBSCT) or bone marrow transplant (BMT) in nine randomized controlled trials (1107 patients). IV methods are applied using 2-stage logistic, 2-stage probit and generalized method of moments models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ITT analysis showed a statistically significant detrimental effect with the use of day 11 MTX, resulting in cGVHD odds ratio (OR) of 1.34 (95% CI 1.02-1.76). AT results showed no difference in the odds of cGVHD with the use of MTX [OR 1.31 (95%CI 0.99-1.73)]. IV analysis further corrected the results toward no difference in the odds of cGVHD between PBSCT vs. BMT, allowing for a possibility of beneficial effects of MTX in preventing cGVHD in PBSCT recipients (OR 1.14; 95%CI 0.83-1.56).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>All instrumental variable models produce similar results. IV estimates correct for bias and do not exclude the possibility that MTX may be beneficial, contradicting the ITT analysis.</p

Effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics: a naturalistic, randomized comparison of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No clear recommendations exist regarding which antipsychotic drug should be prescribed first for a patient suffering from psychosis. The primary aims of this naturalistic study were to assess the head-to-head effectiveness of first-line second-generation antipsychotics with regards to time until drug discontinuation, duration of index admission, time until readmission, change of psychopathology scores and tolerability outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted to the emergency ward for symptoms of psychosis were consecutively randomized to risperidone (n = 53), olanzapine (n = 52), quetiapine (n = 50), or ziprasidone (n = 58), and followed for up to 2 years.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 213 patients were included, of which 68% were males. The sample represented a diverse population suffering from psychosis. At admittance the mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was 74 points and 44% were antipsychotic drug naïve. The primary intention-to-treat analyses revealed no substantial differences between the drugs regarding the times until discontinuation of initial drug, until discharge from index admission, or until readmission. Quetiapine was superior to risperidone and olanzapine in reducing the PANSS total score and the positive subscore. Quetiapine was superior to the other drugs in decreasing the PANSS general psychopathology subscore; in decreasing the Clinical Global Impression - Severity of Illness scale score (CGI-S); and in increasing the Global Assessment of Functioning - Split version, Functions scale score (GAF-F). Ziprasidone was superior to risperidone in decreasing the PANSS positive symptoms subscore and the CGI-S score, and in increasing the GAF-F score. The drugs performed equally with regards to most tolerability outcomes except a higher increase of hip-circumference per day for olanzapine compared to risperidone, and more galactorrhoea for risperidone compared to the other groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Quetiapine appears to be a good starting drug candidate in this sample of patients admitted to hospital for symptoms of psychosis.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/</url>: NCT00932529</p

Effectiveness of second generation antipsychotics: A systematic review of randomized trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews based on efficacy trials are inconclusive about which second generation antipsychotic drug (SGA) should be preferred in normal clinical practice, and studies with longer duration and more pragmatic designs are called for. Effectiveness studies, also known as naturalistic, pragmatic, practical or real life studies, adhere to these principles as they aim to mimic daily clinical practice and have longer follow-up.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To review the head-to-head effectiveness of SGAs in the domains of global outcomes, symptoms of disease, and tolerability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches were made in Embase, PubMED, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for effectiveness studies published from 1980 to 2008, week 1. Different combinations of the keywords <it>antipsychotic*, neuroleptic* AND open, pragmatic, practical, naturalistic, real life, effectiveness, side effect*, unwanted effect*, tolera* AND compar* AND random* </it>were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixteen different reports of randomized head-to-head comparisons of SGA effectiveness were located. There were differences regarding sample sizes, inclusion criteria and follow-up periods, as well as sources of financial sponsorship. In acute-phase and first-episode patients no differences between the SGAs were disclosed regarding alleviating symptoms of disease. Olanzapine was associated with more weight gain and adverse effects on serum lipids. In the chronic phase patients olanzapine groups had longer time to discontinuation of treatment and better treatment adherence compared to other SGAs. The majority of studies found no differences between the SGAs in alleviating symptoms of psychosis in chronically ill patients. Olanzapine was associated with more metabolic adverse effects compared to the others SGAs. There were surprisingly few between-drug differences regarding side effects. First generation antipsychotics were associated with lower total mental health care costs in 2 of 3 studies on chronically ill patients, but were also associated with more extrapyramidal side effects compared to the SGAs in several studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In chronically ill patients olanzapine may have an advantage over other SGAs regarding longer time to treatment discontinuation and better drug adherence, but the drug is also associated with more metabolic side effects. More effectiveness studies on first-episode psychosis are needed.</p

Methodological quality of test accuracy studies included in systematic reviews in obstetrics and gynaecology: sources of bias

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Obstetrics and gynaecology have seen rapid growth in the development of new tests with research on these tests presented as diagnostic accuracy studies. To avoid errors in judgement it is important that the methodology of these studies is such that bias is minimised. Our objective was to determine the methodological quality of test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist and to assess sources of bias.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective protocol was developed to assess the impact of QUADAS on ten systematic reviews performed over the period 2004-2007.We investigated whether there was an improvement in study quality since the introduction of QUADAS, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and its quality. We also investigated whether there was a correlation between reporting and methodological quality and by the use of meta-regression analyses explored for items of quality that were associated with bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 300 studies were included. The overall quality of included studies was poor (> 50% compliance with 57.1% of quality items). However, the mean compliance with QUADAS showed an improvement post-publication of QUADAS (54.9% versus 61.4% p = 0.002). There was no correlation with study sample size. Gynaecology studies published from the United States of America showed higher quality (USA versus Western Europe p = 0.002; USA versus Asia p = 0.004). Meta-regression analysis showed that no individual quality item had a significant impact on accuracy. There was an association between reporting and methodological quality (r = 0.51 p < 0.0001 for obstetrics and r = 0.56 p < 0.0001 for gynaecology).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A combination of poor methodological quality and poor reporting affects the inferences that can be drawn from test accuracy studies. Further compliance with quality checklists is required to ensure that bias is minimised.</p

Systematic review of effect of community-level interventions to reduce maternal mortality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective was to provide a systematic review of the effectiveness of community-level interventions to reduce maternal mortality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched published papers using Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, CINAHL, BNI, CAB ABSTRACTS, IBSS, Web of Science, LILACS and African Index Medicus from inception or at least 1982 to June 2006; searched unpublished works using National Research Register website, metaRegister and the WHO International Trial Registry portal. We hand searched major references.</p> <p>Selection criteria were maternity or childbearing age women, comparative study designs with concurrent controls, community-level interventions and maternal death as an outcome. We carried out study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment independently in duplicate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found five cluster randomised controlled trials (RCT) and eight cohort studies of community-level interventions. We summarised results as odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI), combined using the Peto method for meta-analysis. Two high quality cluster RCTs, aimed at improving perinatal care practices, showed a reduction in maternal mortality reaching statistical significance (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98). Three equivalence RCTs of minimal goal-oriented versus usual antenatal care showed no difference in maternal mortality (1.09, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.25). The cohort studies were of low quality and did not contribute further evidence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Community-level interventions of improved perinatal care practices can bring about a reduction in maternal mortality. This challenges the view that investment in such interventions is not worthwhile. Programmes to improve maternal mortality should be evaluated using randomised controlled techniques to generate further evidence.</p