1
|
Wang Y, Pitre T, Wallach JD, de Souza RJ, Jassal T, Bier D, Patel CJ, Zeraatkar D. Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 168:111278. [PMID: 38354868 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2023] [Revised: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To present an application of specification curve analysis-a novel analytic method that involves defining and implementing all plausible and valid analytic approaches for addressing a research question-to nutritional epidemiology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We reviewed all observational studies addressing the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality, sourced from a published systematic review, and documented variations in analytic methods (eg, choice of model, covariates, etc.). We enumerated all defensible combinations of analytic choices to produce a comprehensive list of all the ways in which the data may reasonably be analyzed. We applied specification curve analysis to data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007 to 2014 to investigate the effect of unprocessed red meat on all-cause mortality. The specification curve analysis used a random sample of all reasonable analytic specifications we sourced from primary studies. RESULTS Among 15 publications reporting on 24 cohorts included in the systematic review on red meat and all-cause mortality, we identified 70 unique analytic methods, each including different analytic models, covariates, and operationalizations of red meat (eg, continuous vs quantiles). We applied specification curve analysis to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including 10,661 participants. Our specification curve analysis included 1208 unique analytic specifications, of which 435 (36.0%) yielded a hazard ratio equal to or more than 1 for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality and 773 (64.0%) less than 1. The specification curve analysis yielded a median hazard ratio of 0.94 (interquartile range: 0.83-1.05). Forty-eight specifications (3.97%) were statistically significant, 40 of which indicated unprocessed red meat to reduce all-cause mortality and eight of which indicated red meat to increase mortality. CONCLUSION We show that the application of specification curve analysis to nutritional epidemiology is feasible and presents an innovative solution to analytic flexibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yumin Wang
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tyler Pitre
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Russell J de Souza
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dennis Bier
- Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chirag J Patel
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lampl C, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Jassal T, Sanchez-Del-Rio M, Reuter U, Uluduz D, Versijpt J, Zeraatkar D, Sacco S. The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Headache Pain 2023; 24:56. [PMID: 37208596 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach. RESULTS We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events. CONCLUSIONS (CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Lampl
- Department of Neurology, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brüder Linz, Linz, Austria.
- Headache Medical Center Linz, Linz, Austria.
| | | | | | - Raquel Gil-Gouveia
- Neurology Department, Hospital da Luz Headache Center, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Health, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | | | - Uwe Reuter
- Department of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Derya Uluduz
- Department of Neurology Istanbul Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Jan Versijpt
- Department of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Anesthesia and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Simona Sacco
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L´Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lampl C, Versijpt J, Amin FM, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, Jassal T, MaassenVanDenBrink A, Ornello R, Paungarttner J, Sanchez-Del-Rio M, Reuter U, Uluduz D, de Vries T, Zeraatkar D, Sacco S. European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline. J Headache Pain 2023; 24:39. [PMID: 37038134 PMCID: PMC10088191 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01573-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more). CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Lampl
- Department of Neurology and Stroke Unit, Konventhospital Barmherzige Brüder Linz, Linz, Austria.
- Headache Medical Center Linz, Linz, Austria.
| | - Jan Versijpt
- Department of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Faisal Mohammad Amin
- Danish Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Raquel Gil-Gouveia
- Hospital da Luz Headache Center, Neurology Department, Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Health, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | | | - Raffaele Ornello
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | | | | | - Uwe Reuter
- Department of Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Derya Uluduz
- Department of Neurology Istanbul Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Tessa de Vries
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Anesthesia and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Simona Sacco
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pitre T, Jassal T, Park L, Coello PA, de Souza R, Zeraatkar D. Reporting and interpretation of effects in non-randomized nutritional and environmental epidemiology: a methods study. Ann Epidemiol 2023; 77:37-43. [PMID: 36375709 DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2022.10.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The presentation of absolute effects, in addition to relative effects, is critical to the optimal interpretation of effect estimates. Failure to present and interpret absolute effects may obscure the magnitude of the effect of an intervention or exposure and mislead evidence users. OBJECTIVE In this study, we estimate the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures that report absolute effects. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2019 through 2021 for SRMAs addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures and patient-important health outcomes. We included a sample of 200 SRMAs. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search records for eligibility and collected data from SRMAs. RESULTS More than two-thirds (153/200; 76.5%) of eligible systematic reviews reported on one or more dichotomous outcomes that could be translated to absolute effects. Only eight (8/153, 5.2%)5.2%), however, reported absolute effects. A similar proportion of reviews published in high-impact journals and in other journals reported absolute effects (4/131; 3.1% vs. 4/69; 5.9%). Among reviews that reported absolute effects, six reviews (6/8; 75%) reported absolute risk differences as fractions (e.g., 2 fewer cases per 1000 people) and two reviews (2/8; 25%) presented the number of cases prevented by modifying the exposure (e.g., 2000 cases prevented in United States annually). CONCLUSIONS Reviews addressing the effects of nutritional and environmental exposures on health outcomes rarely report absolute effects, which precludes effective interpretation of magnitudes of effects and their importance. We present guidance for review authors, editors, peer reviewers, and evidence users to calculate and interpret absolute effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler Pitre
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Louis Park
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Pablo Alonso Coello
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain, Barcelona GRADE Centre, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Russell de Souza
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pitre T, Jassal T, Angjeli A, Jarabana V, Nannapaneni S, Umair A, Hussain M, Leung G, Kirsh S, Su J, Desai K, Coyne J, Mohan S, Zeraatkar D. A comparison of the effectiveness of biologic therapies for asthma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2022; 130:595-606. [PMID: 36563746 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.12.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. RESULTS We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty). CONCLUSION Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tyler Pitre
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Tanvir Jassal
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Albi Angjeli
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vineeth Jarabana
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ayesha Umair
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Muizz Hussain
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gareth Leung
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sarah Kirsh
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Johnny Su
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kairavi Desai
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jade Coyne
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Respirology, St Mary's General Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sindu Mohan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Respirology, St Mary's General Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|