Applicability of trials in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trial populations showing adequate proportion of women, but underrepresentation of elderly people

Objectives: To evaluate whether elderly people and women are adequately represented in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Four systematic searches in MEDLINE yielded RCT in RA and OA on any intervention published in 2016 and 2017 and population-based studies (PBS) in RA and OA published between 2013 and 2017. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the pooled proportion of elderly people (defined as being ≥ 65 years old), the mean age, its standard deviation (SD), and the proportion of women stratified by disease (RA and OA) and study type (RCT and PBS). Stratified estimates were subsequently compared. Results: 265 RCT comprising 51,240 participants and 53 PBS comprising 523,630 participants were included. In both RA and OA, RCT included lower proportions of elderly people than PBS: RA –0.18 (95% confidence interval –0.22 to –0.13); OA –0.20 (–0.30 to –0.09); had lower mean ages: RA –5.2 years (–6.8 to –3.5); OA –4.7 years (–7.5 to –2.0); and smaller SD: RA –1.9 years (–2.6 to –1.3); OA –2.7 years (–4.2 to –1.2); (all comparisons: p ≤ 0.001). Proportions of women were comparable in RCT compared to PBS in both RA and OA. Conclusions: While women are adequately represented in RA and OA trials, the elderly are underrepresented, probably limiting applicability of current evidence to this growing subgroup. It is urgent to improve the inclusion of elderly people in clinical trials and study age as a determinant for outcome

The risk associated with spinal manipulation:an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe. CONCLUSIONS: It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015030068. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality:An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Despite the nutritional value of meat, a large volume of reviews and meta-analyses suggests that processed meat intake is associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, assessments of the quality of these published reviews internal validity are generally lacking. We systematically reviewed and assessed the quality alongside summarizing the results of previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the association between processed meat intake and cancers, type II diabetes (T2D), and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Reviews and meta-analyses published until May 2018 were identified through a systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, and reference lists of included reviews. The quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). All eligible reviews had to comply with two quality requirements: providing sufficient information on quality assessment of the primary studies and a comprehensive search. The results were summarized for T2D, CVD, and each of the different cancer types. The certainty in the estimates of the individual outcomes was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. In total, 22 systematic reviews were eligible and thus included in this review. More than 100 reviews were excluded because quality assessment of the primary studies had not been performed. The AMSTAR score of the included reviews ranged from 5 to 8 indicating moderate quality. Overall, the quality assessments of primary studies of the reviews are generally lacking; the scientific quality of the systematic reviews reporting positive associations between processed meat intake and risk of various cancers, T2D and CVD is moderate, and the results from case-control studies suggest more often a positive association than the results from cohort studies. The overall certainty in the evidence was very low across all individual outcomes, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision

OMERACT consensus-based operational definition of contextual factors in rheumatology clinical trials: A mixed methods study

Objectives: To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1]. Methods: Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying -, Outcome Influencing - and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs. Results: Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consensus (≥70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive. Conclusion: Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members

Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049

Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35-55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear

Objective Compare arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to a true sham intervention. Methods Sham-controlled superiority trial performed in three county hospitals in Denmark comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to skin incisions only in patients aged 35-55 years with persistent knee pain and an MRIconfirmed medial meniscus lesion. A computer-generated table of random numbers generated two comparison groups. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Exclusions were locking knees, highenergy trauma or severe osteoarthritis. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 and 24 months. We hypothesised no difference between groups. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change from baseline to 2 years in the mean score across all five normalised Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS5). Results Forty-four patients (of the estimated 72) underwent randomisation; 22 in each group. Sixteen participants (36%) were non-blinded and eight participants (36%) from the sham group crossed over to the surgery group prior to the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, both groups reported clinically relevant improvements (surgery 21.8, skin incisions only 13.6), the mean difference between groups was 8.2 in favour of surgery, which is slightly less than the cut-off of 10 prespecified to represent a clinically relevant difference; judged by the 95% CI (-3.4 to 19.8), a possibility of clinically relevant difference could not be excluded. In total, nine participants experienced 11 adverse events; six in the surgery group and three in the skin-incisions-only group. Conclusion We found greater improvement from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared with skin incisions only at 2 years, with the statistical uncertainty of the between-group difference including what could be considered clinically relevant. Because of the study being underpowered, nearly half in the sham group being non-blinded and one-Third crossing over to surgery, the results cannot be generalised to the greater patient population

Effect modification by contextual factors of urate-lowering therapy on serum urate in people with gout:A systematic review with meta-regression analysis

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence of the effect of contextual factors (CFs) on efficacy of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) on serum urate (SU) as outcome in gout patients. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from (updated) Cochrane reviews were the starting point. RCTs were included if they explored the role of any CF on efficacy of ULT on SU in gout patients. For CFs with sufficient data (i.e. ≥3 trials), a mixed-effects meta-regression analysis was performed with trial and comparison as random effects, whereas specific CFs were modelled as fixed factors. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included. Effect modification by CFs was explored for age, sex, race, renal function, cardiovascular comorbidity, tophi, thiazide-diuretic use, and previous ULT use. Crude data stratified by renal function were available for four trials (36 randomised comparisons), and suitable for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates revealed that gout patients with a normal, mildly-, or moderately impaired renal function were consistently more likely to achieve SU target with ULT compared to control. Among RCTs comparing ULT to placebo (30 comparisons), effects of ULT on achieving SU target were not statistically different for those with normal (OR:66.87;[11.39-392.75]) compared to mildly (OR:28.54;[5.11-159.46]) and moderately (OR:21.45;[3.20-143.64]) impaired renal function, but seemed lower in those with severely impaired (OR:9.13;[0.96-86.97]) renal function. Data were insufficient to draw conclusions on effect modification by other CFs. CONCLUSION: Few RCTs report stratified analyses exploring the role of CFs. ULT seemed effective in reaching the SU target in all levels of renal function, though severely impaired renal function appeared to render a slight disadvantage

Population characteristics as important contextual factors in rheumatological trials:an exploratory meta-epidemiological study from an OMERACT Working Group

Objectives To explore whether trial population characteristics modify treatment responses across various interventions, comparators and rheumatic conditions. Methods In this meta-epidemiological study, we included trials from systematic reviews available from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group published up to 23 April 2019 in Cochrane Library with meta-analyses of five or more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from year 2000. From trial reports, we extracted data on 20 population characteristics. For characteristics with sufficient data (ie, available for >= 2/3 of the trials), we performed multilevel meta-epidemiological analyses. Results We identified 19 eligible systematic reviews contributing 187 RCTs (212 comparisons). Only age and sex were explicitly reported in >= 2/3 of the trials. Using information about the country of the trials led to sufficient data for five further characteristics, that is, 7 out of 20 (35%) protocolised characteristics were analysed. The meta-regressions showed effect modification by economic status, place of residence, and, nearly, from healthcare system (explaining 4.8%, 0.9% and 1.5% of the between-trial variation, respectively). No effect modification was demonstrated from age, sex, patient education/health literacy or predominant religion. Conclusions This study demonstrates the scarce reporting of most population characteristics, hampering investigation of their impact with meta-research. Our sparse results suggest that place of residence (ie, continent of the trial), economic status (based on World Bank classifications) and healthcare system (based on WHO index for health system performance) may be important in explaining the variation in treatment response across trials. There is an urgent need for consistent reporting of important population characteristics in trials. PROSPERO registration number CRD4201912764