Competing risk and heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials

It has been demonstrated that patients enrolled in clinical trials frequently have a large degree of variation in their baseline risk for the outcome of interest. Thus, some have suggested that clinical trial results should routinely be stratified by outcome risk using risk models, since the summary results may otherwise be misleading. However, variation in competing risk is another dimension of risk heterogeneity that may also underlie treatment effect heterogeneity. Understanding the effects of competing risk heterogeneity may be especially important for pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials, which seek to include traditionally excluded patients, such as the elderly or complex patients with multiple comorbidities. Indeed, the observed effect of an intervention is dependent on the ratio of outcome risk to competing risk, and these risks – which may or may not be correlated – may vary considerably in patients enrolled in a trial. Further, the effects of competing risk on treatment effect heterogeneity can be amplified by even a small degree of treatment related harm. Stratification of trial results along both the competing and the outcome risk dimensions may be necessary if pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials are to provide the clinically useful information their advocates intend

Lymphoma incidence, survival and prevalence 2004–2014 : sub-type analyses from the UK’s Haematological Malignancy Research Network

Background: Population-based information about cancer occurrence and survival are required to inform clinical practice and research; but for most lymphomas data are lacking. Methods: Set within a socio-demographically representative UK population of nearly 4 million, lymphoma data (N ¼ 5796) are from an established patient cohort. Results: Incidence, survival (overall and relative) and prevalence estimates for 420 subtypes are presented. With few exceptions, males tended to be diagnosed at younger ages and have significantly (Po0.05) higher incidence rates. Differences were greatest at younger ages: the o15 year male/female rate ratio for all subtypes combined being 2.2 (95% CI 1.3–3.4). These gender differences impacted on prevalence; most subtype estimates being significantly (Po0.05) higher in males than females. Outcome varied widely by subtype; survival of patients with nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma approached that of the general population, whereas less than a third of those with other B-cell (e.g., mantle cell) or T-cell (e.g., peripheral-T) lymphomas survived for Z5 years. No males/female survival differences were detected. Conclusions: Major strengths of our study include completeness of ascertainment, world-class diagnostics and generalisability. The marked variations demonstrated confirm the requirement for ‘real-world’ data to inform aetiological hypotheses, health-care planning and the future monitoring of therapeutic changes

Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?

The understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and vertebral artery dissection and stroke (VADS) has evolved considerably over the years. In the beginning the relationship was seen as simple cause-effect, in which CMT was seen to cause VADS in certain susceptible individuals. This was perceived as extremely rare by chiropractic physicians, but as far more common by neurologists and others. Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit