Methodological shortcomings predicted lower harm estimates in one of two sets of studies of clinical interventions

Total ischemic time and age as predictors of PCI failure in STEMIs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

When feasible, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the definitive intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, cardiac tissue reperfusion is not always achievable after opening the infarct-related artery. Studies have investigated associating factors and scoring for the "no-reflow" phenomenon. This paper aims to systematically establish the predictive values of total ischemic time and patient age as factors of coronary no-reflow in patients undergoing primary PCI.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using EBSCOhost, including CINAHL Complete, Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Search results were compiled utilizing Zotero reference manager and exported to Covidence.org for screening, selection, and data extraction by two independent reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies was used to evaluate the eight selected studies.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 367 articles, with eight meeting the inclusion criteria with a total of 7060 participants. Our systematic review demonstrated that for patients older than 60 years, the odds of the no-reflow phenomenon increased 1.53- 2.53 times. Additionally, patients with increased total ischemic time had 1.147- 4.655 times the odds of no-reflow incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients older than 60 years with a total ischemic time >4-6 h are at higher risk of PCI failure due to the no-reflow phenomenon. Therefore, new guidelines and more research to prevent and treat this physiologic occurrence are essential to improve coronary reperfusion after primary PCI.

The incidence of complications after derotational femoral and/or tibial osteotomies in patellofemoral disorders in adolescents and active young patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To quantify the risk of perioperative and postoperative complications of derotational femoral and/or tibial osteotomies in patellofemoral disorders (anterior knee pain and patellar instability) in adolescents and active young patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus databases were used to identify studies published from database inception and June 30, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed to pool the rates of complications related to femur and tibia osteotomies. Values of proportion of complications were expressed as proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and then transformed using a Freeman Tukey double arcsine transformation. Meta-regression was used to explore factors that potentially may influence on heterogeneity such as year of publication, quality of the included studies and site of the osteotomy.

RESULTS

The 22 studies identified included a total of 648 derotational osteotomies in 494 patients. Studies consisted of 20 case series (non-comparative) and 2 comparative observational non-randomized cohorts. Tibial osteotomies showed higher risk of complications than femoral osteotomies (random pooled prevalence 9%; 95% CI 4-15% versus 1%; 95% CI 0-5%, respectively, p < 0.01). The meta-regression analysis of the articles showed that the only parameters responsible of the variance in number of complications were the osteotomy site.

CONCLUSIONS

Derotational femoral and/or tibial osteotomy is a safe surgical procedure in the treatment of patellofemoral disorders (anterior knee pain and patellar instability) in adolescents and active young people.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Adverse Events Reporting of Clinical Trials in Exercise Oncology Research (ADVANCE): Protocol for a Scoping Review

Introduction

Adequate, transparent, and consistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) in exercise oncology trials is critical to assess the safety of exercise interventions for people following a cancer diagnosis. However, there is little understanding of how AEs are reported in exercise oncology trials. Thus, we propose to conduct a scoping review to summarise and evaluate current practice of reporting of AEs in published exercise oncology trials with further exploration of factors associated with inadequate reporting of AEs. The study findings will serve to inform the need for future research on standardisation of the definition, collection, and reporting of AEs for exercise oncology research.

Materials and Methods

The ADVANCE (ADverse eVents reporting of clinicAl trials iN exerCise oncology rEsearch) study will be conducted and reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guideline. Any type of clinical trial involving an exercise intervention in people living with and beyond cancer with a full-text report in English will be included. Six electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL Plus) will be searched for studies. Two independent review authors will assess eligibility of identified studies, chart data using pre-established extraction forms, and evaluate adequacy of reporting of AEs-related data against a 20-item scoring checklist derived from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension. We will summarise results using descriptive and inferential analysis methods.

Ethics and Dissemination

No ethics approval will be required to conduct the ADVANCE study owing to inclusion of only published data. The study results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and internationa  conferences.

Systematic Review Registration

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/NXEJD/ (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/NXEJD).

Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroid Use in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

We conducted a comprehensive literature review to synthesize evidence for the relationship between corticosteroid use and mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 13, 2021. We searched and analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) that examined corticosteroid use in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and serious adverse events.

Results

A total of 11 RCTs and 44 OSs involving 7893 and 41,164 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Corticosteroid use was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality in RCTs, but was not statistically significant (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77–1.07; I² = 63.4%). The subgroup analysis of pulse dose corticosteroid showed survival benefit statistically (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15–0.56). Moreover, the corticosteroid use may reduce the need for MV (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.90; I² = 7.5%) with no significant increase in serious adverse reactions (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30–2.37; I² = 33.3%). In addition, the included OSs showed that the pulse dose (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45–0.95; I² = 30.8%) might lower the mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pulse dose of methylprednisolone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.80; I² = 0%) had a beneficial effect on survival. It was especially significant when the duration of pulse methylprednisolone use was less than 7 days (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43–0.80; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that corticosteroid use might cause a slight reduction in COVID-19 mortality. However, it could significantly reduce the MV requirement in patients with COVID-19 and restrict serious adverse events. Additionally, the pulse dose of methylprednisolone for less than 7 days may be a good treatment choice for patients with COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00518-3.

Defining and measuring meditation-related adverse effects in mindfulness-based programs

BACKGROUND

Research on the adverse effects of mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) has been sparse and hindered by methodological imprecision.

METHODS

The 44-item Meditation Experiences Interview (MedEx-I) was used by an independent assessor to measure meditation-related side effects (MRSE) following three variants of an 8-week program of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (n = 96). Each item was queried for occurrence, causal link to mindfulness meditation practice, duration, valence, and impact on functioning.

RESULTS

Eighty-three percent of the MBP sample reported at least one MRSE. Meditation-related adverse effects (MRAEs) with negative valences or negative impacts on functioning occurred in 58% and 37% of the sample, respectively. Lasting bad effects occurred in 6-14% of the sample and were associated with signs of dysregulated arousal (hyperarousal and dissociation).

CONCLUSION

Meditation practice in MBPs is associated with transient distress and negative impacts at similar rates to other psychological treatments.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose corticosteroids for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting results regarding whether corticosteroids have better efficacy than placebo in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Therefore, we aim to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in adult ARDS patients.

METHODS

The databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, were searched from their inception to May 2, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies were selected to assess the use of corticosteroids in adult ARDS patients. The quality of the results was judged by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The inverse-variance method with random or fixed effects modeling was used to compute pooled odds ratio (OR), standardized mean difference (SMD), and their 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight eligible RCTs and six cohort studies were included. The use of corticosteroids was associated with reduced mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.76, I2=35.1%, P=0.148) in ARDS patients, and the result was confirmed in the included cohort studies (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.95, I2=66.7%, P=0.010). The subgroup analysis stratified by the initiation time and duration of corticosteroid use showed that early ARDS and prolonged corticosteroid use had significant survival benefits in the RCTs. The low-dose corticosteroid use was also associated with significantly more ventilator-free days and a reduced rate of new infections in ARDS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The low-dose corticosteroid therapy may be safe and reduce mortality, especially in patients with prolonged treatment and early ARDS.

A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to develop and validate an adequate tool to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews assessing drug adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed a structured risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, cohort, case-control and nested case-control studies, and systematic reviews focusing on drug safety. Face and content validity was judged by three experienced reviewers. Interrater and intrarater reliability were determined using 20 randomly selected studies, assessed by three other independent reviewers including one performing a 3-week retest.

RESULTS

The developed checklist examines eight domains: study design and objectives, selection bias, attrition, adverse events information bias, other information bias, statistical methods to control confounding, other statistical methods, and conflicts of interest. The total number of questions varied from 10 to 32 depending on the study design. Interrater and intrarater agreements were fair with Kendall's W of 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. Median time to complete the checklist was 8.5 minutes.

CONCLUSION

The developed checklist showed face and content validity and acceptable reliability to assess the risk of bias for studies analyzing drug adverse events. Hence, it might be considered as a novel useful tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on drug safety.

Tracheocutaneous fistula closure in children

OBJECTIVE

Systematic review of surgical techniques for tracheocutaneous fistula closure in children and successful closure or development of adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

A medical librarian was utilized to perform a systematic review.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified. Eight studies reported outcomes for primary closure alone; one discussed results for secondary closure alone; and five included a combination of children who underwent either primary and secondary closure alone. No difference between surgical techniques was identified for effectiveness of closure (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.10) and major (RR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.56 to 5.05) or minor complications (RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.50 to 3.27). No mortalities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Both primary and secondary closure techniques for persistent tracheocutaneous fistulas in children are effective and associated with acceptable rates of complications. Given the available evidence, neither approach appears to be superior. Considerations for decision making in surgical approach may include family and social considerations, facility resource utilization, and cost differential. Further investigation may be directed at improving patient selection.

Building useful evidence: changing the clinical research paradigm to account for comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) calls for substantial changes in the way clinical research is conducted, interpreted and practically applied in the USA, in order to produce useful clinical evidence. Departing from classic efficacy and effectiveness research, the evolving CER paradigm requires structural and substantive innovations that address three basic questions: what works? for whom? and in whose hands? Addressing these questions will require fundamental changes in the approach to clinical research that include: the use of active treatments (or comparators) versus placebos in the comparisons of treatments, innovative or 'alternative' research methods, the specification and a priori design of studies to account for important subgroups, accounting for the nested nature of healthcare delivery in design and analysis of CER, the simultaneous study of multiple treatments or treatment modalities, the study of multiple outcomes (benefits and harms) for each treatment compared, and the reassessment of the value of different study designs in the hierarchy of collective 'evidence'. In order to aid individual providers and patients in making informed, personalized treatment decisions, guided by the best evidence possible, CER studies must generalize to a broad range of subgroups reflecting the spectrum of patients, providers and health systems that populate real-world practice settings. Without expansion in the scope, conduct and subsequent interpretation of clinical research reflected in the issues outlined above, CER will fall short of its potential for informing evidence-based practice and personalized medicine. The current paradigm for conducting, interpreting and applying clinical research does not meet the needs of optimal generalizability and application to individual physician-patient efforts to identify the most effective treatment, and therefore does not support the basic requirements of CER. The proposed changes should neither require decades nor exorbitant budgets to achieve. Using two examples, prostate cancer, and comparisons of single medications, we illustrated how the proposed changes in clinical research, matching strategy to each application, might be addressed.

Evaluating harm associated with anti-malarial drugs: a survey of methods used by clinical researchers to elicit, assess and record participant-reported adverse events and related data

Background

Participant reports of medical histories, adverse events (AE) and non-study drugs are integral to evaluating harm in clinical research. However, interpreting or synthesizing results is complicated if studies use different methods for ascertaining and assessing these data. To explore how these data are obtained in malaria drug studies, a descriptive online survey of clinical researchers was conducted during 2012 and 2013.

Methods

The survey was advertised through e-mails, collaborators and at conferences. Questions aimed to capture the detail, rationale and application of methods used to obtain relevant data within various study designs and populations. Closed responses were analysed using proportions, open responses through identifying repeating ideas and underlying concepts.

Results

Of fifty-two respondents from 25 counties, 87% worked at an investigational site and 75% reported about an interventional study. Studies employed a range of methods to elicit, assess and record participant-reported AEs and related data. Questioning about AEs in 31% of interventional studies was a combination of general (open questions about health) and structured (reference to specific health-related items), 26% used structured only and 18% general only. No observational studies used general questioning alone. A minority incorporated pictorial tools. Rationales for the questioning approach included: standardization of assessment or data capture, specificity or comprehensiveness of data sought, avoidance of suggestion, feasibility, and understanding participants’ perceptions. Most respondents considered the approach they reported was optimal, though several reconsidered this. Four AE grading, and three causality assessment approaches were reported. Combining general and structured questions about non-study drug use were considered useful for revealing and identifying specific medicines, while pictures could enhance reports, particularly in areas of low literacy.

Conclusions

It is critical to evaluate the safety of anti-malarial drugs being deployed in large, diverse populations. Many studies would be suitable for contributing to a larger body of evidence for answering questions on harm. However this survey showed that various methods are used to obtain relevant data, which could influence study results. As the best practices for obtaining such data are unclear, anti-malarial clinical researchers should work towards consensus about the selection and/or design of optimal methods.

Comparison of pooled risk estimates for adverse effects from different observational study designs: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

A diverse range of study designs (e.g. case-control or cohort) are used in the evaluation of adverse effects. We aimed to ascertain whether the risk estimates from meta-analyses of case-control studies differ from that of other study designs.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in 10 databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, and handsearching key journals and conference proceedings. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from case-control studies could be directly compared with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from other types of observational studies.

RESULTS

We included 82 meta-analyses. Pooled estimates of harm from the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped in 78/82 instances (95%). Of the 23 cases of discrepant findings (significant harm identified in meta-analysis of one type of study design, but not with the other study design), 16 (70%) stemmed from significantly elevated pooled estimates from case-control studies. There was associated evidence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with higher risk estimates from case-control studies. On average, cohort or cross-sectional studies yielded pooled odds ratios 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-1.00) times lower than that from case-control studies.

INTERPRETATION

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that meta-analysis of case-control studies tend to give slightly higher estimates of harm as compared to meta-analyses of other observational studies. However it is impossible to rule out potential confounding from differences in drug dose, duration and populations when comparing between study designs.

Frequency of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSES

To perform a comprehensive systematic review of prospective studies about frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurring during hospitalization (ADR(In) ), including a thorough study quality assessment, meta-analysis and heterogeneity evaluation.

METHODS

Systematic review of several databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, ISI, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scirus, NHS economic, and others, as well as manual search. Inclusion criteria were: prospective studies (assessing all patients before discharge, by a specialized team, at least once a week); with data about ADRs occurring during hospitalization, using WHO's or similar definition of ADR. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias.

RESULTS

From 4139 studies initially found, 22 were included. Meta-analysis indicate that ADRs may occur in 16.88% (CI95%: 13.56,20.21%) of patients during hospitalization; however, this estimate has to be viewed with caution because there was significant heterogeneity (I²  = 99%). The most significant moderators of heterogeneity were risk of bias, population, ward, and methodology for ADR identification. Low risk of bias studies adjusted for population (pediatric versus adult) had I²  = 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data are useful as a broad characterization of in-hospital ADRs and their frequency. However, due to heterogeneity, our estimates are crude indicators. The wide variation in methodologies was one of the most important moderators of heterogeneity (even among studies using intensive monitoring). We suggest criteria to standardize methodologies and reduce the risk of bias.

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data.

STUDY SELECTION

All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program

Comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) are systematic reviews that evaluate evidence on alternative interventions to help clinicians, policy makers, and patients make informed treatment choices. Reviews should assess harms and benefits to provide balanced assessments of alternative interventions. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the magnitude of any risks require CER authors to consider a broad range of data sources, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. This may require evaluation of unpublished data in addition to published reports. Appropriate synthesis of harms data must also consider issues related to evaluation of rare or uncommon events, assessments of equivalence or noninferiority, and use of indirect comparisons. This article presents guidance for evaluating harms when conducting and reporting CERs. We include suggestions for prioritizing harms to be evaluated, use of terminology related to reporting of harms, selection of sources of evidence on harms, assessment of risk of bias (quality) of harms reporting, synthesis of evidence on harms, and reporting of evidence on harms.

Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

AIM

To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searching, checking conference proceedings and discussion with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and carried out data extraction for potentially relevant papers. We included studies that compared the results and interpretation of the adverse effects data according to funding source (e.g. adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry research vs. data from nonprofit organizations, or from one manufacturer vs. another). Methodological evaluations were excluded if categories of funding source were not explicitly specified by the researchers, and if we were uncertain that industry-funded studies were present in the evaluation.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 4,069 hits, of which six methodological evaluations met our inclusion criteria. One survey of 370 trials covering a wide range of topics found that trials with industry sponsors had more complete reporting of adverse effects compared with non-industry-funded trials, whereas another survey of 504 inhaled corticosteroid studies showed no apparent difference after confounding factors were adjusted for. In contrast, we found evidence from post hoc subgroup analyses involving two products where the likelihood of harm was of a lower magnitude in manufacturer-funded studies compared with nonmanufacturer-funded studies. There is also evidence from four methodological evaluations that authors with industry funding were more likely than authors without pharmaceutical funding to interpret and conclude that a drug was safe, even among studies that did find a statistically significant increase in adverse effects for the sponsored product.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that industry funding may not be a major threat to bias in the reporting of the raw adverse effects data. However, we are concerned about potential bias in the interpretation and conclusions of industry-funded authors and studies.