Evaluation of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects in published multiperson N-of-1 studies: systematic review and reanalysis.

OBJECTIVE:Individual patients with the same condition may respond differently to similar treatments. Our aim is to summarise the reporting of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in multiperson N-of-1 studies and to examine the evidence for person-level HTE through reanalysis. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review and reanalysis of multiperson N-of-1 studies. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science and review of references through August 2017 for N-of-1 studies published in English. STUDY SELECTION:N-of-1 studies of pharmacological interventions with at least two subjects. DATA SYNTHESIS:Citation screening and data extractions were performed in duplicate. We performed statistical reanalysis testing for person-level HTE on all studies presenting person-level data. RESULTS:We identified 62 multiperson N-of-1 studies with at least two subjects. Statistical tests examining HTE were described in only 13 (21%), of which only two (3%) tested person-level HTE. Only 25 studies (40%) provided person-level data sufficient to reanalyse person-level HTE. Reanalysis using a fixed effect linear model identified statistically significant person-level HTE in 8 of the 13 studies (62%) reporting person-level treatment effects and in 8 of the 14 studies (57%) reporting person-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis suggests that person-level HTE is common and often substantial. Reviewed studies had incomplete information on person-level treatment effects and their variation. Improved assessment and reporting of person-level treatment effects in multiperson N-of-1 studies are needed

Survival enhancing indications for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in California

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is performed because of anticipated survival benefit, improvement in quality of life, or both. We performed this study to explore variations in clinical indications for CABG surgery among California hospitals and surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using California CABG Outcomes Reporting Program data, we classified all isolated CABG cases in 2003–2004 as having "probable survival enhancing indications (SEIs)", "possible SEIs" or "non-SEIs." Patient and hospital characteristics associated with SEIs were examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While 82.9% of CABG were performed for probable SEIs, the range extended from 68% to 96% among hospitals and 51% to 100% among surgeons. SEI rates were higher among patients aged ≥ 65 compared with those aged 18–64 (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] > 1.29 for age groups 65–69, 70–74 and ≥ 75; all p < 0.001), among Asians and Native Americans compared with Caucasians (AOR 1.22 and 1.15, p < 0.001); and among patients with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease and congestive heart failure compared to patients without these conditions (AOR > 1.09, all p < 0.001). Variations in indications for surgery were more strongly related to patient mix than to surgeon or hospital effects (intraclass correlation [ICC] = 0.04 for hospital; ICC = 0.01 for surgeon).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>California hospitals and surgeons vary in their distribution of indications for CABG surgery. Further research is required to identify the roles of market factors, referral patterns, patient preferences, and local clinical culture in producing the observed variations.</p

Feasibility of a mobile and web-based intervention to support self-management in outpatients with cancer pain

Purpose: Cancer pain is a prevalent and distressing symptom. To enhance self-management in outpatients, a multi-component intervention was developed, integrating patient self-management and professional care through healthcare technology. This article describes feasibility of the intervention in everyday practice. Method: Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain (n = 11) and registered nurses specialized in pain and palliative care (n = 3) participated in a four-week study. The intervention involved daily monitoring, graphical feedback, education, and advice by means of a mobile application for patients and a web application for nurses. Learnability, usability and desirability were measured in patients with a 20-item questionnaire (1–5 scale), higher scores indicating better feasibility. Patients' adherence was based on completion rates from server logs. Single semi-structured interviews with patients and a focus group interview with nurses provided insight into experiences. Results: Questionnaire findings confirmed learnability (4.8), usability (4.8) and desirability (4.6) of the application for patients. Average completion rates were 76.8% for pain monitoring, 50.4% for medication monitoring and 100% for education sessions. Interviews revealed that patients were pleased with the simplicity of the mobile application and appreciated different components. Nurses agreed upon the added value and were mostly positive about the possibilities of the web application. Patients and nurses provided ideas for improvements relating to the content and technical performance of the intervention. Conclusions: Study results demonstrate feasibility of the intervention in everyday practice. Provided that content-related and technical adjustments are made, the intervention enables patients with cancer pain to practice self-management and nurses to remotely support these patients

Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?

BACKGROUND: Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.29) and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12-0.22). The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations

Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; such variation in therapeutic outcome is termed heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Identifying HTE is necessary to individualize treatment. The degree to which heterogeneity is sought and analyzed correctly in the general medical literature is unknown. We undertook this literature sample to track the use of HTE analyses over time, examine the appropriateness of the statistical methods used, and explore the predictors of such analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles were selected through a probability sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in <it>Annals of Internal Medicine</it>, <it>BMJ</it>, <it>JAMA</it>, <it>The Lancet</it>, and <it>NEJM </it>during odd numbered months of 1994, 1999, and 2004. RCTs were independently reviewed and coded by two abstractors, with adjudication by a third. Studies were classified as reporting: (1) HTE analysis, utilizing a formal test for heterogeneity or treatment-by-covariate interaction, (2) subgroup analysis only, involving no formal test for heterogeneity or interaction; or (3) neither. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression were used to identify variables associated with HTE reporting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>319 studies were included. Ninety-two (29%) reported HTE analysis; another 88 (28%) reported subgroup analysis only, without examining HTE formally. Major covariates examined included individual risk factors associated with prognosis, responsiveness to treatment, or vulnerability to adverse effects of treatment (56%); gender (30%); age (29%); study site or center (29%); and race/ethnicity (7%). Journal of publication and sample size were significant independent predictors of HTE analysis (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>HTE is frequently ignored or incorrectly analyzed. An iterative process of exploratory analysis followed by confirmatory HTE analysis will generate the data needed to facilitate an individualized approach to evidence-based medicine.</p

Consumer Attitudes and Use of Antibiotics

Recent antibiotic use is a risk factor for infection or colonization with resistant bacterial pathogens. Demand for antibiotics can be affected by consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. In 1998–1999, the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) conducted a population-based, random-digit dialing telephone survey, including questions regarding respondents’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices of antibiotic use. Twelve percent had recently taken antibiotics; 27% believed that taking antibiotics when they had a cold made them better more quickly, 32% believed that taking antibiotics when they had a cold prevented more serious illness, and 48% expected a prescription for antibiotics when they were ill enough from a cold to seek medical attention. These misguided beliefs and expectations were associated with a lack of awareness of the dangers of antibiotic use; 58% of patients were not aware of the possible health dangers. National educational efforts are needed to address these issues if patient demand for antibiotics is to be reduced

Evaluation of in-stent restenosis in the APPROACH trial (assessment on the prevention of progression by Rosiglitazone on atherosclerosis in diabetes patients with cardiovascular history)

To determine (1) the medium-term effect of rosiglitazone and glipizide on intra-stent neointima hyperplasia, (2) restenosis pattern as assessed by intra-vascular ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in patients with T2DM and coronary artery disease. A total of 462 patients with T2DM were randomized to rosiglitazone or glipizide for up to 18 months in the APPROACH trial, and had evaluable baseline and follow-up IVUS examinations. There was no significant difference in the size of plaque behind stent between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (−5.6 mm3 vs. 1.9 mm3; P = 0.61) or with a drug-eluting stent (12.1 mm3 vs. 5.5 mm3; P = 0.09). Similarly, there was no significant difference in percentage intimal hyperplasia volume between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups at 18 months among those treated with a bare metal stent (24.1% vs. 19.8%; P = 0.38) or with a drug-eluting stent (9.8% vs. 8.3%; P = 0.57). QCA data (intra-stent late loss, intra-stent diameter stenosis or binary restenosis) were not different between the rosiglitazone and glipizide groups. This study suggests that both rosiglitazone and glipizide have a similar effect on neointimal growth at medium term follow-up, a finding that warrants investigation in dedicated randomized trials

Pain relief in labour: a qualitative study to determine how to support women to make decisions about pain relief in labour

Background Engagement in decision making is a key priority of modern healthcare. Women are encouraged to make decisions about pain relief in labour in the ante-natal period based upon their expectations of what labour pain will be like. Many women find this planning difficult. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women can be better supported in preparing for, and making, decisions during pregnancy and labour regarding pain management. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primiparous and 10 multiparous women at 36 weeks of pregnancy and again within six weeks postnatally. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently to identify key themes. Results Three main themes emerged from the data. Firstly, during pregnancy women expressed a degree of uncertainty about the level of pain they would experience in labour and the effect of different methods of pain relief. Secondly, women reflected on how decisions had been made regarding pain management in labour and the degree to which they had felt comfortable making these decisions. Finally, women discussed their perceived levels of control, both desired and experienced, over both their bodies and the decisions they were making. Conclusion This study suggests that the current approach of antenatal preparation in the NHS, of asking women to make decisions antenatally for pain relief in labour, needs reviewing. It would be more beneficial to concentrate efforts on better informing women and on engaging them in discussions around their values, expectations and preferences and how these affect each specific choice rather than expecting them to make to make firm decisions in advance of such an unpredictable event as labour