A living meta-analysis of colchicine for pericarditis

A New Approach to Evidence Synthesis in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time.

METHODS

We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

CONCLUSIONS

We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

Effectiveness of colchicine for the prevention of recurrent pericarditis and post-pericardiotomy syndrome: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical data

The aim of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of colchicine in prevention of recurrence, symptom reduction, and complications in patients with pericarditis. Pericarditis is an important cause of chest pain leading to frequent emergency room visits and reduced quality of life. Pericarditis has traditionally been treated symptomatically with anti-inflammatory drugs, but growing evidence suggests the use of colchicine for both first episode and recurrent pericarditis in the prevention of recurrences and reducing symptoms. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched and the studies were selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All randomized clinical trials with head-to-head comparison between colchicine and standard of care were included. A total of five studies were included in the primary analysis of pericarditis and three in the analysis for prevention of post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS). Colchicine reduced the incidence rate of recurrent pericarditis in patients with both the first episode and recurrent pericarditis, compared with placebo [16.7 vs. 36.8%; risk ratio (RR) 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.58; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 0%], with a significant increase in adverse effects (12.5 vs. 8.5%, RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.09-1.95; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%) and drug withdrawal rate (10.8 vs. 8.5%; RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.01-2.05; P = 0.04; I(2) = 14%). In addition, colchicine decreased symptom duration in patients with recurrent pericarditis (63.1 vs. 78.6%; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39-0.87; P = 0.02; I(2) = 65%), but had no significant effect on symptom duration in patients with an initial episode of pericarditis (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.65-1.28; P = 0.57; I(2) = 0%). Colchicine was superior to placebo in the prevention of PPS at 1 year (13.2 vs. 25.8%, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.76; P < 0.01). In this quantitative analysis of randomized clinical data, colchicine demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with standard therapy for the prevention of recurrent pericarditis and PPS at the cost of a small increase in the incidence rate of side effects.