Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy

Real-world evidence of allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The full understanding of the long-term effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic respiratory diseases cannot be achieved through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) alone. However, real-world studies designed as registries can complement RCTs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The significance of registries is highlighted by their potential to reassess contraindications and collect data on adult and pediatric patients with multiple comorbidities who are often excluded from RCTs.

SUMMARY

AIT is the sole disease-modifying therapeutic approach capable of inducing tolerance and offering a long-term response to allergens. AIT has been shown to play a role in arresting the 'allergic march' in young people, which reduces the risk of developing asthmatic clinical manifestations. Although RCTs are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy and safety of AIT, their duration is usually too short (seldom lasting more than 1 year) to assess the long-term effects of AIT. Several long-term studies show that AIT's effect depends strongly on its use duration.

Retrospective, Real Life Study on the Effectiveness and Safety of a Depigmented-Polymerized Subcutaneous Vaccine Containing a Mixture of Grasses and Olea europaea

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is the only modifying treatment of the natural course of respiratory allergic diseases; however, the lack of evidence leads to little inconclusive results. Real life studies are on the rise and are becoming a valuable tool to confirm and complement findings from clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a depigmented-polymerized undiluted subcutaneous extract of grass and olive pollen, under routine clinical practice conditions.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, longitudinal, single-center study on the use of a 2-pollen (grass mix and Olea europaea) undiluted subcutaneous extract over at least 3 consecutive years. Data were collected from 76 patients (n = 44 female; median age: 12.5 years old) diagnosed with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with/without allergic asthma due to sensitization to both grasses and O. europaea. Primary and secondary effectiveness endpoints were symptom severity, concomitant medication, and immunological profile before and after completing the immunotherapy. A 2-year follow-up of patients' symptoms and medication history after completing the subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was performed.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement of symptoms and medication consumption after 3 years of SCIT treatment, and a significant decrease in specific IgE levels for grasses and O. europaea was observed after finishing the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Three years treatment of allergic patients using an undiluted mixture of two allergen extracts was shown to be safe and effective for rhinitis and asthma, with efficacy maintained for at least 2 years after finishing SCIT. These results reinforce the importance of real life clinical data in addition to those from clinical trials, helping to individualize allergic treatments.

Improving Diagnosis and Care for Patients With Sarcoma: Do Real-World General Practitioners Data and Prospective Data Collections Have a Place Next to Clinical Trials?

There has been growing interest in the use of real-world data (RWD) to address clinically and policy-relevant (research) questions that cannot be answered with data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) alone. This is, for example, the case in rare malignancies such as sarcomas as limited patient numbers pose challenges in conducting RCTs within feasible timeliness, a manageable number of collaborators, and statistical power. This narrative review explores the potential of RWD to generate real-world evidence (RWE) in sarcoma research, elucidating its application across different phases of the patient journey, from prediagnosis to the follow-up/survivorship phase. For instance, examining electronic health records (EHRs) from general practitioners (GPs) enables the exploration of consultation frequency and presenting symptoms in primary care before a sarcoma diagnosis. In addition, alternative study designs that integrate RWD with well-designed observational RCTs may offer relevant information on the effectiveness of clinical treatments. As, especially in cases of ultrarare sarcomas, it can be an extreme challenge to perform well-powered randomized prospective studies. Therefore, it is crucial to support the adaptation of novel study designs. Regarding the follow-up/survivorship phase, examining EHR from primary and secondary care can provide valuable insights into identifying the short- and long-term effects of treatment over an extended follow-up period. The utilization of RWD also comes with several challenges, including issues related to data quality and privacy, as described in this study. Notwithstanding these challenges, this study underscores the potential of RWD to bridge, at least partially, gaps between evidence and practice and holds promise in contributing to the improvement of sarcoma care.

The German Fast Track Toward Reimbursement of Digital Health Applications: Opportunities and Challenges for Manufacturers, Healthcare Providers, and People With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Digital health applications (DiGA) supporting the management of diabetes are among the most commonly available digital health technologies. However, transparent quality assurance of DiGA and clinical proof of a positive healthcare effect is often missing, which creates skepticism of some stakeholders regarding the usage and reimbursement of these applications.

METHODS

This article reviews the recently established fast-track integration of DiGA in the German reimbursement market, with emphasis on the current impact for manufacturers, healthcare providers, and people with diabetes. The German DiGA fast track is contextualised with corresponding initiatives in Europe.

RESULTS

The option of a provisional prescription and reimbursement of DiGA while proving a positive healthcare effect in parallel may expedite the adoption of DiGA in Germany and beyond. However, hurdles for a permanent prescription and reimbursement of DiGA are high and only one of 12 that have achieved this status specifically addresses people with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The DiGA fast track needs to be further enhanced to cope with remaining skepticism and contribute even more to a value-based diabetes care.

Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?

This paper examines the application of super-superiority margins in study power calculations. Unlike traditional power calculations, which primarily aim to reject the null hypothesis by any margin, a super-superiority margin establishes a clinically significant threshold. Despite potential benefits, this approach, akin to a non-inferiority calculation but in an opposing direction, is rarely used. Implementing a super-superiority margin separates the notion of the likely difference between two groups (the effect size) from the minimum clinically significant difference, without which inconsistent positions could be held. However, these are often used interchangeably. In an audit of 30 recent randomized controlled trial power calculations, four studies utilized the minimal acceptable difference, and nine utilized the expected difference. In the other studies, this was unclarified. In the post hoc scenario, this approach can shed light on the value of undertaking further studies, which is not apparent from the standard power calculation. The acceptance and rejection of the alternate hypothesis for super-superiority, non-inferiority, equivalence, and standard superiority studies have been compared. When a fixed minimal acceptable difference is applied, a study result will be in one of seven logical positions with regards to the simultaneous application of these hypotheses. The trend for increased trial size and the mirror approach of non-inferiority studies implies that newer interventions may be becoming less effective. Powering for superiority could counter this and ensure that a pre-trial evaluation of clinical significance has taken place, which is necessary to confirm that interventions are beneficial.

Anakinra authorized to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019; Sepsis breakthrough or time to reflect?

Introduction

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced conditions for using recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (rhIL-1ra) to treat hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and risk for progression. These decisions followed publication of the suPAR-guided Anakinra treatment for Validation of the risk and early Management OF seveRE respiratory failure by COVID-19 (SAVE- MORE) phase 3 clinical trial that yielded positive results.

Methods

We conducted a literature review and theoretical analysis of IL-1 blockade as a therapy to treat COVID-19. Using a stepwise analysis, we assessed clinical applicability of the SAVE-MORE results and evaluated conceptual support for interleukin-1 suppression as a suitable approach to COVID-19 treatment. This therapeutic approach was then examined as an example of inflammation-suppressing measures used to treat sepsis.

Results

Anakinra use as a COVID-19 therapy seems to rely on a view of pathogenesis that incorrectly reflects human disease. Since COVID-19 is an example of sepsis, COVID-19 benefit due to anti-inflammatory therapy contradicts an extensive history of unsuccessful clinical study. Repurposing rhIL-1ra to treat COVID-19 appears to exemplify a cycle followed by inflammation-suppressing sepsis treatments. A landscape of treatment failures is interrupted by a successful clinical trial. However, subsequent confirmatory study fails to replicate the positive data.

Discussion

We suggest further experimentation is not a promising pathway to discover game-changing sepsis therapies. A different kind of approach may be necessary.

Safety considerations for withdrawal of nucleos(t)ide analogues in patients with chronic hepatitis B: First, do no harm

Nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) are widely used to treat hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, but they cannot eradicate the virus and treatment duration can be lifelong if the endpoint is set at seroclearance of the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). As an alternative strategy, finite NA therapy without the prerequisite of HBsAg seroclearance has been proposed to allow treatment cessation in patients with sustained undetectable HBV viremia for two to three years. However, reactivation of viral replication almost always follows NA withdrawal. Whereas HBV reactivation might facilitate HBsAg seroclearance in some, it could lead to serious acute flare-ups in a certain proportion of patients. Occurrence and consequences of NA withdrawal flares are complicated with various factors involving the virus, host, and treatment. Accurate risk prediction for severe flares following NA cessation is essential to ensure patient safety. The risks of life-threatening flares in patients who discontinued NA according to the stopping rules of current guidelines or local reimbursement policies have recently been quantitatively estimated in large-scale studies, which also provided empirical evidence to help identify vulnerable patients at risk of devastating outcomes. Moreover, risk predictors were further explored and validated to hopefully aid in patient selection and management. In this narrative review with a focus on patient safety, we summarize and discuss current literature on the incidence of severe flares following NA cessation, risk stratification for candidate selection, rules of posttreatment monitoring, and indications for treatment resumption. We also share our thoughts on the limitations of existing knowledge and suggestions for future research.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Belantamab Mafodotin Monotherapy in Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma

B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is a promising therapeutic target for multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of monotherapy with the conjugated anti-BCMA monoclonal antibody belantamab mafodotin in triple-class refractory patients with MM in real-world practice. Patients refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory drug, and one anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody received belantamab mafodotin at 2.5 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Overall, 27 patients with a median age of 65 years (range 41-81) were included. Of these, 52% were male and the median number of prior lines of treatment was 5 (4-10). The overall response rate (partial response or better) was 52%, whereas the disease control rate (stable disease or better) was 70%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2 months (95%CI: 0-7), whereas the median PFS among the responders was 12 months (95%CI: 6-18). Regarding the toxicity profile, the most common toxicity was eye toxicity, in 44% of the patients. Keratopathy grade 2-3 was reported in 33.3% of the patients. In conclusion, belantamab mafodotin showed a safety and efficacy profile consistent with the results of the registrational study. Importantly, heavily pretreated patients who responded to treatment derived a substantial survival benefit.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice.

METHODS

We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Stereotactic or Conventional Radiation for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has been increasingly used for the treatment of inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has been shown to provide promising local control (LC) and toxicity in prospective trials. However, randomized trials have shown conflicting results in terms of whether SABR confers an overall survival (OS) advantage compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT). A systematic review of Medline and Embase (inception to December 2020) was performed on early-stage NSCLC patients randomized to SABR versus CFRT. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and manuscripts. A random-effects model was used to estimate treatment effects. Toxicity outcomes were compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Individual patient data were digitally approximated and pooled as secondary analysis. The literature search identified 1494 studies, and 16 studies were included for full-text review. Two randomized trials were identified, including a total of 203 patients, of which 115 (57%) received SABR, and 88 (43%) received CFRT. The weighted mean age was 74 years and 48% of patients were male. Most patients had T1 cancers (67%). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was not associated with a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.08, p=0.71). There was no significant difference in LC between SABR and CFRT (relative risk: 0.59; CI 0.28-1.23, p=0.16). Of the commonly reported adverse events, one grade 4 toxicity of dyspnea was reported for SABR, while all others i.e., grade 3 or higher toxicities were similar. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy demonstrated less esophagitis, dyspnea, and skin reaction of any grade. Despite widespread adoption and extensive single-arm prospective and retrospective studies suggesting its benefit, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials fail to confirm improvements in LC, OS, and toxicity profile of SABR over CFRT in early NSCLC. This small study is likely underpowered to detect clinically significant differences.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

Real-World Outcomes of Systemic Therapy in Japanese Patients with Cancer (Tokushukai REAl-World Data Project: TREAD): Study Protocol for a Nationwide Cohort Study

Cohort studies using large-scale databases have become increasingly important in recent years. The Tokushukai Medical Group is a leading medical group in Japan that includes 71 general hospitals nationwide from Hokkaido to Okinawa, with a total of 18,000 beds, and a unified electronic medical record system. This retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the real-world outcomes of systemic therapy for Japanese patients with cancer using this merit of scale. All adult patients with cancer who received systemic therapy using a centrally registered chemotherapy protocol system at 46 hospitals from April 2010 to March 2020 will be identified (~48,850 patients). Key exclusion criteria include active double cancer and inadequate data extraction. Data will be obtained through electronic medical records, diagnosis procedure combination data, medical prescription data, and the national cancer registration system that includes sociodemographic variables, diagnostic and laboratory tests, concomitant drug prescriptions, cost, and overall survival. Kaplan–Meier estimates will be calculated for time-to-event analyses. Stratified/conventional Cox proportional hazards regression analyses will be conducted to examine the relationships between overall survival and related factors. Our findings provide important insights for future research directions, policy initiatives, medical guidelines, and clinical decision-making.

Registry-based randomised clinical trials: a remedy for evidence-based diabetes care?

This narrative review describes a new approach to navigation in a challenging landscape of clinical drug development in diabetes. Successful outcome studies in recent years have led to new indications and guidelines in type 2 diabetes, yet the number of clinical trials in diabetes is now declining. This is due to many environmental factors acting in concert, including the prioritisation of funding for other diseases, high costs of large randomised clinical trials, increase in regulatory requirements and limited entry of novel candidate drugs. There is a need for novel and cost-effective paradigms of clinical development to meet these and other challenges. The concept of registry-based randomised clinical trials (RRCTs) is an attractive option. In this review we focus on type 2 diabetes and the prevention of cardiovascular and microvascular comorbidities and mortality, using the Swedish SMARTEST trial as an example of an RRCT. We also give some examples from other disease areas. The RRCT concept is a novel, cost-effective and scientifically sound approach for conducting large-scale diabetes trials in a real-world setting.

Surgery for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Child and adolescent overweight and obesity have increased globally and are associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgery for treating obesity in childhood and adolescence.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)and ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 August 2021 (date of the last search for all databases). We did not apply language restrictions. We checked references of identified studies and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions for treating obesity in children and adolescents (age < 18 years) with a minimum of six months of follow-up. We excluded interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or which included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity, or who were pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Where necessary, we contacted authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

With this update, we did not find any new RCTs. Therefore, this updated review still includes a single RCT (a total of 50 participants, 25 in both the intervention and comparator groups). The intervention focused on laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding surgery, which was compared to a control group receiving a multi-component lifestyle programme. The participating population consisted of Australian adolescents (a higher proportion of girls than boys) aged 14 to 18 years, with a mean age of 16.5 and 16.6 years in the gastric banding and lifestyle groups, respectively. The trial was conducted in a private hospital, receiving funding from the gastric banding manufacturer. For most of the outcomes, we identified a high risk of bias, mainly due to bias due to missing outcome data. Laparoscopic gastric banding surgery may reduce BMI by a mean difference (MD) of -11.40 kg/m2 (95% CI -13.22 to -9.58) and weight by -31.60 kg (95% CI -36.66 to -26.54) compared to a multi-component lifestyle programme at two years follow-up. The evidence is very uncertain due to serious imprecision and a high risk of bias. Adverse events were reported in 12/25 (48%) participants in the intervention group compared to 11/25 (44%) in the control group. A total of 28% of the adolescents undergoing gastric banding required revisional surgery. The evidence is very uncertain due to serious imprecision and a high risk of bias. At two years of follow-up, laparoscopic gastric banding surgery may increase health-related quality of life in the physical functioning scores by an MD of 16.30 (95% CI 4.90 to 27.70) and change in health scores by an MD of 0.82 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.46) compared to the lifestyle group. The evidence is very uncertain due to serious imprecision and a high risk of bias. No data were reported for all-cause mortality, behaviour change, participants' views of the intervention and socioeconomic effects. Finally, we have identified three ongoing RCTs that are evaluating the efficacy and safety of metabolic and bariatric surgery in children and adolescents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastric banding led to greater body weight loss compared to a multi-component lifestyle program in one small study with 50 participants. These results have very limited application, primarily due to more recent recommendations derived from observation studies to avoid the use of banding in youth due to long-term reoperation rates. This systematic review update still highlights the lack of RCTs in this field. The authors are concerned that there may be ethical barriers to RTCs in this field, despite the lack of other effective therapies for severe obesity in children and adolescents and the significant morbidity and premature mortality caused by childhood obesity. Nevertheless, future studies, whether pre-registered and planned non-randomised or pragmatic randomised trials, should assess the impact of the surgical procedure and post-operative care to minimise adverse events, including the need for post-operative adjustments and revisional surgery. Long-term follow-up is also critical to comprehensively assess the impact of surgery as participants enter adulthood.

Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

Transparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.

SETTING

Exploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Two independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.

RESULTS

The sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants' sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.

CONCLUSIONS

These results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.

Benchmarking Observational Analyses Before Using Them to Address Questions Trials Do Not Answer: An Application to Coronary Thrombus Aspiration

To increase confidence in the use of observational analyses when addressing effectiveness questions beyond those addressed by randomized trials, one can first benchmark the observational analyses against existing trial results. We used Swedish registry data to emulate a target trial similar to the Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE) randomized trial, which found no difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 1 year with or without thrombus aspiration among individuals with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We benchmarked the emulation against the trial at 1 year and then extended the emulation's follow-up to 3 years and estimated effects in subpopulations underrepresented in the trial. As in the TASTE trial, the observational analysis found no differences in risk of outcomes by 1 year between groups (risk difference = 0.7 (confidence interval, -0.7, 2.0) and -0.2 (confidence interval, -1.3, 1.0) for death and myocardial infarction, respectively), so benchmarking was considered successful. We additionally showed no difference in risk of death or myocardial infarction by 3 years, or within subpopulations by 1 year. Benchmarking against an index trial before using observational analyses to answer questions beyond those the trial could address allowed us to explore whether the observational data can be trusted to deliver valid estimates of treatment effects.

Substance, use in relation to COVID-19: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

We conducted a scoping review focused on various forms of substance use amid the pandemic, looking at both the impact of substance use on COVID-19 infection, severity, and vaccine uptake, as well as the impact that COVID-19 has had on substance use treatment and rates.

METHODS

A scoping review, compiling both peer-reviewed and grey literature, focusing on substance use and COVID-19 was conducted on September 15, 2020 and again in April 15, 2021 to capture any new studies. Three bibliographic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, PubMed) and several preprint servers (EuropePMC, bioRxiv, medRxiv, F1000, PeerJ Preprints, PsyArXiv, Research Square) were searched. We included English language original studies only.

RESULTS

Of 1564 articles screened in the abstract and title screening phase, we included 111 research studies (peer-reviewed: 98, grey literature: 13) that met inclusion criteria. There was limited research on substance use other than those involving tobacco or alcohol. We noted that individuals engaging in substance use had increased risk for COVID-19 severity, and Black Americans with COVID-19 and who engaged in substance use had worse outcomes than white Americans. There were issues with treatment provision earlier in the pandemic, but increased use of telehealth as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 anxiety was associated with increased substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review of studies to date during COVID-19 uncovered notable research gaps namely the need for research efforts on vaccines, COVID-19 concerns such as anxiety and worry, and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and under-researched topics within substance use, and to explore the use of qualitative techniques and interventions where appropriate. We also noted that clinicians can screen and treat individuals exhibiting substance use to mitigate effects of the pandemic.

FUNDING

Study was funded by the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University and The Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy. DH was funded by a NIDA grant (R01DA048860). The funding body had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data in the study.

Challenges and opportunities in real-world evidence on the renal effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors

With increasing population aging and prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) worldwide, prevention of diabetic complications remains a major unmet need. While cardiovascular outcomes of diabetes are improving over time, diabetic kidney disease (DKD) still leads to an exceedingly high rate of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). A game-changing opportunity is offered by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have indisputably shown that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the rate of DKD progression, the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the development of ESKD. In parallel, SGLT2 inhibitors improve cardiovascular outcomes, especially the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. Real-world studies (RWSs) have largely confirmed the findings of RCTs in broader populations of subjects with T2D followed under routine care. In the present paper, we review RWSs exploring the renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors and highlight the most critical challenges that can be encountered in designing and conducting such studies. Channelling bias (confounding by indication), time-lag bias, conditioning on the future, database heterogeneity, linearity of eGFR change over time, and duration of observation are critical issues that may undermine the robustness of RWS findings. We then elaborate on the new opportunities to overcome such limitations by describing the design and objectives of the DARWIN (DApagliflozin Real-World evIdeNce)-Renal study, a new RWS promoted by the Italian Diabetes Society. Fine-tuning of methods for comparative observational research will improve evidence derived from RWSs on the renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, aiding the evolving discussion regarding the place of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D treatment algorithms in different stages of DKD.

Early Death and Survival of Patients With Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in ATRA Plus Arsenic Era: A Population-Based Study

Most randomized trials for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) have investigated highly selected patients under idealized conditions, and the findings need to be validated in the real world. We conducted a population-based study of all APL patients in Zhejiang Province, China, with a total population of 82 million people, to assess the generalization of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic as front-line treatment. The outcomes of APL patients were also analyzed. Between January 2015 and December 2019, 1,233 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of ATRA and arsenic as front-line treatment increased steadily from 66.2% in 2015 to 83.3% in 2019, with no difference among the size of the center (≥5 or <5 patients per year, p = 0.12) or age (≥60 or <60 years, p = 0.35). The early death (ED) rate, defined as death within 30 days after diagnosis, was 8.2%, and the 3-year overall survival (OS) was 87.9% in the whole patient population. Age (≥60 years) and white blood cell count (>10 × 10⁹/L) were independent risk factors for ED and OS in the multivariate analysis. This population-based study showed that ATRA and arsenic as front-line treatment are widely used under real-world conditions and yield a low ED rate and a high survival rate, which mimic the results from clinical trials, thereby supporting the wider application of APL guidelines in the future.

Cardiovascular outcomes after initiating GLP-1 receptor agonist or basal insulin for the routine treatment of type 2 diabetes: a region-wide retrospective study

Aim

We aimed to compare cardiovascular outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or basal insulin (BI) under routine care.

Methods

We accessed the administrative claims database of the Veneto Region (Italy) to identify new users of GLP-1RA or BI in 2014–2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to obtain two cohorts of patients with superimposable characteristics. The primary endpoint was the 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE). Secondary endpoints included 3P-MACE components, hospitalization for heart failure, revascularizations, and adverse events.

Results

From a background population of 5,242,201 citizens, 330,193 were identified as having diabetes. PSM produced two very well matched cohorts of 4063 patients each, who initiated GLP-1RA or BI after an average of 2.5 other diabetes drug classes. Patients were 63-year-old and only 15% had a baseline history of cardiovascular disease. During a median follow-up of 24 months in the intention-to-treat analysis, 3P-MACE occurred less frequently in the GLP-1RA cohort (HR versus BI 0.59; 95% CI 0.50–0.71; p < 0.001). All secondary cardiovascular endpoints were also significantly in favor of GLP-1RA. Results were confirmed in the as-treated approach and in several stratified analyses. According to the E-value, confounding by unmeasured variables were unlikely to entirely explain between-group differences in cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions

Patients with T2D who initiated a GLP-1RA experienced far better cardiovascular outcomes than did matched patients who initiated a BI in the same healthcare system. These finding supports prioritization of GLP-1RA as the first injectable regimen for the management of T2D.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-021-01414-3.

Risks and benefits of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticancer drugs without active comparators in patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment options are debated. We aimed to quantify the safety and the efficacy of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients who have exhausted standard of care treatments from RCTs without active comparators.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to preferred reporting Items for systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42021243968). A systematic literature search of English language publications from January 1, 2000, to January 7, 2021, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials included all RCTs evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced solid tumors with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. RCTs performed in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant or maintenance settings were excluded, as were clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in combination with radiotherapy. Two authors (C.M.B. and E.C.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data from published reports were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlations between severe toxicity and efficacy was assessed using R² measures.Findings: Of 3551 studies screened, 128 eligible trials were found involving 47,432 patients. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0·58 [95%CI: 0·53-0·63] and 0·82 [95%CI: 0·78-0·85]. The absolute benefits however were limited with PFS and OS gains of 2·1 and 0·5 months. The absolute excesses in all grade, severe grade III, IV and V (death) adverse events between the two arms were +13·9%, 10·2%, and +0·5%. A weak correlation was measured between the excess of severe toxicity and efficacy (all R² < 0·2).Interpretation: Anticancer drugs evaluated in RCTs against no active treatment benefited trial participants. Severe toxicity did not significantly correlate with efficacy.

FUNDING

None.

[Consequences of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic umbrella review]

INTRODUCTION

 The treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture is still controversial. In particular, this applies to the question of conservative versus surgical treatment. The answer to this question is often based on consequential damage such as the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, secondary damage to the meniscus or cartilage, and participation in sports. If there are significant differences in these parameters between the individual treatment options, the results will be of great importance for the development of evidence-based treatment pathways. Therefore, the aim of this work was to evaluate the development of knee osteoarthritis after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament and the corresponding treatment (conservative or surgical).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 To answer the above question, a systematic literature search was conducted in Medline via Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and in CINAHL. Only systematic reviews with a minimum follow-up period of 10 years were included. The search was conducted in January 2020 and updated in January 2021. Investigated cohorts included patients with a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament who had undergone either conservative or surgical treatment. Osteoarthritis was diagnosed either radiologically (recognized scores) or clinically (pain and impaired function). Appropriate reviews were qualitatively evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 questionnaire.

RESULTS

 The literature research initially identified n = 42 reviews from which 14 reviews were included. After full-text review and qualitative evaluation, only n = 2 systematic reviews remained for evaluation. The results of both papers show imprecise data with a high variability. However, it can be assumed with high probability that the development of osteoarthritis of the knee is increased after a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. There is no evidence that the incidence of joint degeneration may be reduced by reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, nor is there a difference when comparing conservative and surgical treatment directly.

CONCLUSION

 Patients with an anterior cruciate ligament rupture are likely to be at a greater risk of developing progressive joint degeneration. A protective effect of cruciate ligament surgery has not been found in the evaluated studies. A general argument in favour of cruciate ligament surgery aiming to achieve a protective effect on hyaline articular cartilage seems obsolete based on the results and should therefore not be used in patient education in the future.

Allergen immunotherapy: The growing role of observational and randomized trial "Real-World Evidence"

BACKGROUND

Although there is a considerable body of knowledge about allergen immunotherapy (AIT), there is a lack of data on the reliability of real-world evidence (RWE) in AIT, and consequently, a lack of information on how AIT effectively works in real life.

METHODS

To address the current unmet need for an appraisal of the quality of RWE in AIT, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Methodology Committee recently initiated a systematic review of observational studies of AIT, which will use the RELEVANT tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) to rate the quality of the evidence base as a whole. The next step will be to develop a broadly applicable, pragmatic "real-world" database using systematic data collection. Based on the current RWE base, and perspectives and recommendations of authorities and scientific societies, a hierarchy of RWE in AIT is proposed, which places pragmatic trials and registry data at the positions of highest level of evidence.

KEY RESULTS

There is a need to establish more AIT registries that collect data in a cohesive way, using standardized protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

This will provide an essential source of real-world data that can be easily shared, promoting evidence-based research and quality improvement in study design and clinical decision-making.

The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

Disentangling conflicting evidence on DPP-4 inhibitors and outcomes of COVID-19: narrative review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread all over the world, becoming pandemic. Several studies have shown that diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor that increases mortality and other adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may bind dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) for entering cells of the respiratory tract. Besides, DPP4 takes part in immune system regulation. Thus, DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) may play a role against COVID-19.

METHODS

We focused on the impact of DPP4i treatment on COVID-19-related outcomes in people with DM. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on this topic.

RESULTS

Retrospective observational studies provide inconsistent results on the association between use of DPP4i and outcomes of COVID-19. While two studies reported significantly lower mortality rates among patients with DM who received DPP4i versus those who did not, a series of other studies showed no effect of DPP4i or even worse outcomes. A meta-analysis of 7 studies yielded a neutral estimate of the risk ratio of COVID-19-related mortality among users of DPP4i (0.81; 95% CI 0.57-1.15).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational research available so far provides inconclusive results and insufficient evidence to recommend use of DPP4i against COVID-19.

Comparing Effect Estimates in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies From the Same Population: An Application to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

To understand when results from observational studies and randomized trials are comparable, we performed an observational emulation of a target trial designed to ask similar questions as the VALIDATE (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST‐Segment and Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy) randomized trial. The VALIDATE trial compared the effect of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding across Sweden.

Methods and Results

We specified the protocol of a target trial similar to the VALIDATE trial, then emulated the target trial in the period before the VALIDATE trial took place using data from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry—the same registry in which the trial was undertaken. The target trial emulation and the VALIDATE trial both estimated little or no effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on the risk of death or myocardial infarction by 180 days (target trial emulation risk ratio for death, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.88 – 1.54]; VALIDATE trial hazard ratio for death, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.78 – 1.41]). The observational data, however, could not capture less severe cases of bleeding, resulting in an inability to define a bleeding outcome like the trial, and could not accurately estimate the comparative risk of death by 14 days, which may be the result of intractable confounding early in follow‐up or the inability to precisely emulate the trial’s eligibility criteria.

Conclusions

Using real‐world data to emulate a target trial can deliver accurate effect estimates. Yet, even with rich observational data, it is not always possible to estimate the short‐term effect of interventions or the effect on outcomes for which data are not routinely collected.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Data from a Real-World Study in Spain

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to describe utilization patterns, persistence, resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in routine clinical practice in Spain.

METHODS

This retrospective study of medical records in the Big-Pac database identified adults starting treatment with once-weekly (QW) dulaglutide, exenatide-QW or once-daily liraglutide between 1 November 2015 and 30 June 2017. Patients were followed for up to 18 months from treatment initiation. Data on clinical characteristics of patients, treatment patterns, average daily dose and costs were obtained for the three cohorts. Persistence over the 18-month period was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves. All analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were included in this study (dulaglutide [n = 492], exenatide-QW [n = 438] or liraglutide [n = 472]); 52.8% were men, and the mean (SD) age was 62 (11) years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.1% (1.2) and body mass index was 35.5 (3.2) kg/m² at treatment initiation. Persistence at 18 months was 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.8-63.4) for dulaglutide, 45.7% (95% CI 41.0-50.4) for exenatide-QW and 46.6% (95% CI 42.1-51.1) for liraglutide. The average (SD) dose was 1.2 (0.4) mg/week for dulaglutide, 1.9 (0.3) mg/week for exenatide-QW and 1.1 (0.3) mg/day for liraglutide. The average reduction in HbA1c levels at 1 year was - 0.68% for patients who initiated dulaglutide, - 0.54% for patients who initiated exenatide-QW and - 0.50% for patients who initiated liraglutide. The mean (SD) total annual health care costs were €4072 (1946) for dulaglutide, €4418 (2382) for exenatide-QW and €4382 (2389) for liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that patients who started treatment with dulaglutide had higher persistence over 18 months, presented lower HbA1c levels at 12 months and incurred lower annual total healthcare costs than patients who initiated exenatide-QW or liraglutide.

Large-scale evidence generation and evaluation across a network of databases (LEGEND): assessing validity using hypertension as a case study

Objectives

To demonstrate the application of the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) principles described in our companion article to hypertension treatments and assess internal and external validity of the generated evidence.

Materials and Methods

LEGEND defines a process for high-quality observational research based on 10 guiding principles. We demonstrate how this process, here implemented through large-scale propensity score modeling, negative and positive control questions, empirical calibration, and full transparency, can be applied to compare antihypertensive drug therapies. We assess internal validity through covariate balance, confidence-interval coverage, between-database heterogeneity, and transitivity of results. We assess external validity through comparison to direct meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

From 21.6 million unique antihypertensive new users, we generate 6 076 775 effect size estimates for 699 872 research questions on 12 946 treatment comparisons. Through propensity score matching, we achieve balance on all baseline patient characteristics for 75% of estimates, observe 95.7% coverage in our effect-estimate 95% confidence intervals, find high between-database consistency, and achieve transitivity in 84.8% of triplet hypotheses. Compared with meta-analyses of RCTs, our results are consistent with 28 of 30 comparisons while providing narrower confidence intervals.

Conclusion

We find that these LEGEND results show high internal validity and are congruent with meta-analyses of RCTs. For these reasons we believe that evidence generated by LEGEND is of high quality and can inform medical decision-making where evidence is currently lacking. Subsequent publications will explore the clinical interpretations of this evidence.

Randomized Trials Versus Common Sense and Clinical Observation: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Concerns about the external validity of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), together with the widespread availability of real-world data and advanced data analytic tools, have led to claims that common sense and clinical observation, rather than RCTs, should be the preferred method to generate evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, over the past 4 decades, results from well-done RCTs have repeatedly contradicted practices supported by common sense and clinical observation. Common sense and clinical observation fail for several reasons: incomplete understanding of pathophysiology, biases and unmeasured confounding in observational research, and failure to understand risks and benefits of treatments within complex systems. Concerns about traditional RCT models are legitimate, but randomization remains a critical tool to understand the causal relationship between treatments and outcomes. Instead, development and promulgation of tools to apply randomization to real-world data are needed to build the best evidence base in cardiovascular medicine.

•

Well-conducted RCTs have repeatedly contradicted practices supported by common sense and clinical observation.

•

Common sense and clinical observation fail because of the inability to fully understand complex biopsychosocial systems.

•

RCTs must be integrated into clinical practice to improve the evidence base in cardiology.

Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers

Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence based interventions into practice and policy to improve health. Despite the need for high quality evidence from implementation research, randomised trials of implementation strategies often have serious limitations. These limitations include high risks of bias, limited use of theory, a lack of standard terminology to describe implementation strategies, narrowly focused implementation outcomes, and poor reporting. This paper aims to improve the evidence base in implementation science by providing guidance on the development, conduct, and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies. Established randomised trial methods from seminal texts and recent developments in implementation science were consolidated by an international group of researchers, health policy makers, and practitioners. This article provides guidance on the key components of randomised trials of implementation strategies, including articulation of trial aims, trial recruitment and retention strategies, randomised design selection, use of implementation science theory and frameworks, measures, sample size calculations, ethical review, and trial reporting. It also focuses on topics requiring special consideration or adaptation for implementation trials. We propose this guide as a resource for researchers, healthcare and public health policy makers or practitioners, research funders, and journal editors with the goal of advancing rigorous conduct and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies.

Tobacco cessation in low- to middle-income countries: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The growing prevalence of tobacco use in low "to middle" income countries (LMICs) and the hurdles of conducting tobacco cessation in that context necessitates a focus on the scope of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in LMICs to guide tobacco cessation in this environment. We conducted a scoping review to identify LMIC tobacco cessation RCTs.

METHODS

Consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines and without language restrictions, we systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, articles published since inception, latest searches in March 2020) and gray literature (clinical trials registries, searches between September and December 2019). We searched for data on RCT type, outcome significance and intervention description. Inclusion: research conducted in LMICs; tobacco cessation; RCT. Exclusion: research conducted in high income countries; non-RCT; studies involving only those aged <18. Data was extracted from published reports. We generated narrative summaries of each LMIC's tobacco cessation RCT research environment.

RESULTS

Of 8404 articles screened, we identified 92 studies. Tobacco cessation RCTs were recorded in 16 of 138 countries/territories in LMICs. Evidence was weak in quality and severely limited. Most RCTs were psychosocial, with limited behavioral and pharmacological variants.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco control within LMICs is essential to reduce the tobacco mortality burden. Researchers should be cognizant that tobacco cessation in LMICs is still not an environment where best practice has been established. We suggest that developing solutions specific for LMICs is key to effective tobacco control in LMICs.

Personalized-medicine on carotid endarterectomy and stenting

Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the core of current clinical guidelines and is considered as the gold standard of clinical practice. Despite this, a number of limitations and criticisms are moved to EBM. The major one is that this method privileges randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which the selection of patients is often based on rigid inclusion criteria. The lack of “pragmatism” of some RCTs sometimes makes it difficult to apply guidelines that derive from them to patients observed in clinical practice, who are often affected by comorbidities and disabilities. The new paradigm to overcome this limitation is personalized medicine (PM), which aims to take into account the particular characteristics displayed by the individual. In order to tailor the best treatment for the patient, PM uses EBM but emphasizes the person's specific information from the assessment of the clinic, lifestyle and risk/benefit scores. This narrative review tries to find the best evidence by analysing subgroups and risk scores of patients from meta-analysis and RCTs in order to try to apply PM and to provide good practice points (GPP) on grey aspects and open questions not fully covered by current guidelines on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting for stroke prevention.

Positioning sulphonylureas in a modern treatment algorithm for patients with type 2 diabetes: Expert opinion from a European consensus panel

The large number of pharmacological agents available to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) makes choosing the optimal drug for any given patient a complex task. Because newer agents offer several advantages, whether and when sulphonylureas (SUs) should still be used to treat T2D is controversial. Published treatment guidelines and recommendations should govern the general approach to diabetes management. However, expert opinions can aid in better understanding local practices and in formulating individual choices. The current consensus paper aims to provide additional guidance on the use of SUs in T2D. We summarize current local treatment guidelines in European countries, showing that SUs are still widely proposed as second-line treatment after metformin and are often ranked at the same level as newer glucose-lowering medications. Strong evidence now shows that sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with low hypoglycaemia risk, promote weight loss, and exert a positive impact on vascular, cardiac and renal endpoints. Thus, using SUs in place of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs may deprive patients of key advantages and potentially important cardiorenal benefits. In subjects with ascertained cardiovascular disease or at very high cardiovascular risk, SGLT-2is and/or GLP-1RAs should be used as part of diabetes management, in the absence of contraindications. Routine utilization of SUs as second-line agents continues to be acceptable in resource-constrained settings.

Principles of Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND)

Evidence derived from existing health-care data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, can fill evidence gaps in medicine. However, many claim such data cannot be used to estimate causal treatment effects because of the potential for observational study bias; for example, due to residual confounding. Other concerns include P hacking and publication bias. In response, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics international collaborative launched the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) research initiative. Its mission is to generate evidence on the effects of medical interventions using observational health-care databases while addressing the aforementioned concerns by following a recently proposed paradigm. We define 10 principles of LEGEND that enshrine this new paradigm, prescribing the generation and dissemination of evidence on many research questions at once; for example, comparing all treatments for a disease for many outcomes, thus preventing publication bias. These questions are answered using a prespecified and systematic approach, avoiding P hacking. Best-practice statistical methods address measured confounding, and control questions (research questions where the answer is known) quantify potential residual bias. Finally, the evidence is generated in a network of databases to assess consistency by sharing open-source analytics code to enhance transparency and reproducibility, but without sharing patient-level information. Here we detail the LEGEND principles and provide a generic overview of a LEGEND study. Our companion paper highlights an example study on the effects of hypertension treatments, and evaluates the internal and external validity of the evidence we generate.

Understanding the use of observational and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine

The availability of large datasets from multiple sources [e.g. registries, biobanks, electronic health records (EHRs), claims or billing databases, implantable devices, wearable sensors, and mobile apps], coupled with advances in computing and analytic technologies, have provided new opportunities for conducting innovative health research. Equally, improved digital access to health information has facilitated the conduct of efficient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) upon which clinical management decisions can be based, for instance, by permitting the identification of eligible patients for recruitment and/or linkage for follow-up via their EHRs. Given these advances in cardiovascular data science and the complexities they behold, it is important that health professionals have clarity on the appropriate use and interpretation of observational, so-called 'real-world', and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine. The Cardiovascular Roundtable of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) held a workshop to explore the future of RCTs and the current and emerging opportunities for gathering and exploiting complex observational datasets in cardiovascular research. The aim of this article is to provide a perspective on the appropriate use of randomized and observational data and to outline the ESC plans for supporting the collection and availability of clinical data to monitor and improve the quality of care of patients with cardiovascular disease in Europe and provide an infrastructure for undertaking pragmatic RCTs. Moreover, the ESC continues to campaign for greater engagement amongst regulators, industry, patients, and health professionals in the development and application of a more efficient regulatory framework that is able to take maximal advantage of new opportunities for improving the design and efficiency of observational studies and RCT in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes of type 2 diabetic patients treated with SGLT-2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in real-life

INTRODUCTION

Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) protect type 2 diabetic (T2D) patients from cardiovascular events, but no trial has directly compared their cardiovascular effects. We aimed to address this gap using real-world data.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective real-world study on a population of ~5 million inhabitants from North-East Italy. We identified T2D patients who received new prescription of SGLT2i or GLP-1RA from 2014 to 2018. SGLT2i and GLP-1RA initiators were matched 1:1 by propensity scores. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE)). Secondary endpoints were each component of the primary endpoint, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), revascularization, hospitalization for cardiovascular causes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

From a population of 330 193 diabetic patients, we followed 8596 SGLT2i and GLP-1RA matched initiators for a median of 13 months. Patients in both groups were on average 63 years old, 63% men, and 18% had pre-existing cardiovascular disease. T2D patients treated with SGLT2i versus GLP-1RA, experienced a lower rate of 3P-MACE (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99; p=0.043), myocardial infarction (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.98; p=0.035), hospitalization for HF (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99; p=0.048), and hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99; p=0.037). Adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of dedicated trials, this observational study suggests that SGLT2i may be more effective than GLP-1RA in improving cardiovascular outcomes of T2D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04184947.

Effectiveness of dulaglutide vs liraglutide and exenatide once-weekly. A real-world study and meta-analysis of observational studies

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Real-word data on the head-to-head comparisons among glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are scant. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide and exenatide once weekly (exeOW) in type 2 diabetic (T2D) patients under routine care.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, real-world study on patients with T2D (aged 18-80) initiating a GLP-1RA between 2010 and 2018 at specialist outpatient clinics. We compared the effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide and exeOW on the changes in HbA1c (primary outcome), body weight, blood pressure and fasting glucose (secondary outcomes). Average follow-up was 5.9 months. Channelling biases were addressed with propensity score matching or multivariable adjustment. Meta-analyses of observational studies, covering the same comparisons, are also presented.

RESULTS

849, 1371 and 198 patients were included in the dulaglutide, liraglutide and exeOW groups, respectively. The reduction of HbA1c was greater with dulaglutide than with liraglutide (-0.24 ± 0.08%; p = 0.003), and was confirmed in the meta-analysis of observational studies. In our study, dulaglutide showed similar effectiveness compared to exeOW. When these results were pooled with other observational studies, dulaglutide showed a greater reduction of HbA1c (-0.19%; p = 0.003) and body weight (-0.8 kg; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world scenario, dulaglutide reduced HbA1c more than liraglutide. Conversely, we found similar effect of dulaglutide and exeOW, with statistical differences arising solely when results were meta-analysed with those from other observational studies. Lack of up-titration for liraglutide and higher discontinuation rate for exeOW likely influenced the estimated treatment difference.

Enrolment criteria for diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials do not inform on generalizability to clinical practice: The case of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

AIM

To evaluate the generalizability of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), we assessed what proportion of real-world patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) constitute true CVOT-like populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We applied inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria of each GLP-1RA CVOT to a cross-sectional database of 281 380 T2D patients from Italian diabetes outpatient clinics. We calculated the proportion of patients eligible for each CVOT and compared their clinical characteristics with those of trial patients. In addition, we used a Bayesian network-based method to sample the greatest subsets of real-world patients yielding true CVOT-like populations.

RESULTS

Between 98 725 and 124 164 T2D patients could be evaluated for CVOT eligibility. After excluding patients who were already on GLP-1RAs and applying I/E criteria, 35.8% of patients would be eligible for REWIND, 34.1% for PIONEER-6, 13.4% for EXSCEL, 10.1% for SUSTAIN-6, 9.5% for HARMONY and 9.4% for LEADER. Overall, 45.4% of patients could be eligible for at least one of the CVOTs. These patients, however, were extremely different to trial patients in most of the clinical characteristics, including demographics, concomitant medications and complications. The greatest CVOT-like subsets of real-world patients were 0.5% for SUSTAIN-6, 1.0% for EXSCEL, 1.2% for LEADER, 1.8% for PIONEER-6 and 7.9% for REWIND.

CONCLUSIONS

A very small proportion of real-world patients constitute true CVOT-like populations. These findings question whether any meaningful information can be drawn from applying trial enrolment criteria to real-world T2D patients.

The scope of tobacco cessation randomized controlled trials in low- to middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Tobacco consumption is the leading cause of preventable death globally. The global mortality burden of tobacco use lies predominantly in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There is much evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco cessation RCTs in high-income nations. However, the evidence base in LMICs is far more limited. To effectively design randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that mitigate tobacco-related harms in LMICs, further understanding of RCTs in this environment will be helpful. We will provide quality evidence regarding the scope of tobacco cessation RCTs in LMICs.

METHODS

A scoping review of tobacco cessation RCTs will be conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts will be searched to capture current literature. We will review RCTs that have already been done on tobacco cessation in the LMICs. The key outcome will be tobacco cessation in adults. Examples of the key outcome include smoking abstinence and reduction of tobacco use. Study selection will conform to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and study quality assessed with a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration's instrument.

DISCUSSION

As researchers attempt to minimize the harms from tobacco in LMICs, they need to be aware of scientific evidence to develop RCTs to achieve their aim. The review will complement the evidence base on tobacco cessation in LMICs.

Iron Administration, Infection, and Anemia Management in CKD: Untangling the Effects of Intravenous Iron Therapy on Immunity and Infection Risk

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for infection, attributable to immune dysfunction, increased exposure to infectious agents, loss of cutaneous barriers, comorbid conditions, and treatment-related factors (eg, hemodialysis and immunosuppressant therapy). Because iron plays a vital role in pathogen reproduction and host immunity, it is biologically plausible that intravenous iron therapy and/or iron deficiency influence infection risk in CKD. Available data from preclinical experiments, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials are summarized to explore the interplay between intravenous iron and infection risk among patients with CKD, particularly those receiving maintenance hemodialysis. The current evidence base, including data from a recent randomized controlled trial, suggests that proactive judicious use of intravenous iron (in a manner that minimizes the accumulation of non-transferrin-bound iron) beneficially replaces iron stores while avoiding a clinically relevant effect on infection risk. In the absence of an urgent clinical need, intravenous iron therapy should be avoided in patients with active infection. Although serum ferritin concentration and transferrin saturation can help guide clinical decision making about intravenous iron therapy, definition of an optimal iron status and its precise determination in individual patients remain clinically challenging in CKD and warrant additional study.

Enhancing global access to cancer medicines

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.