Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome.Design Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses.Data sources 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes.Main outcome measures Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates.Results In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses.Conclusions The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.     

Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers

Introduction

Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials.

Methods

This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered ‘non-adherent to the protocol’ but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data.

Results

Systematic reviewer authors should include data from ‘non-adherent’ participants excluded from the primary study authors'' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events.

Conclusions

This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.     

Risk of Bias from Inclusion of Currently Diagnosed or Treated Patients in Studies of Depression Screening Tool Accuracy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Recently Published Primary Studies and Meta-Analyses

Background

Depression screening can improve upon usual care only if screening tools accurately identify depressed patients who would not otherwise be recognized by healthcare providers. Inclusion of patients already being treated for depression in studies of screening tool accuracy would inflate estimates of screening accuracy and yield. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of primary studies of depression screening tool accuracy that were recently published in journals listed in MEDLINE, which appropriately excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients; and (2) whether recently published meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed or treated patients as a potential source of bias.

Methods

MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2013 through March 27, 2015 for primary studies and meta-analyses on depression screening tool accuracy.

Results

Only 5 of 89 (5.6%) primary studies excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients from any analyses and only 3 (3.4%) from main analyses. In 3 studies that reported the number of patients excluded due to current treatment, the number of excluded patients was more than twice the number of newly identified depression cases. None of 5 meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients as a potential source of bias.

Conclusions

The inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients in studies of depression screening tool accuracy is a problem that limits the applicability of research findings for actual clinical practice. Studies are needed that evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools among only untreated patients who would potentially be screened in practice.     

Cholesterol lowering and mortality: the importance of considering initial level of risk.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the level of risk of death from coronary heart disease above which cholesterol lowering treatment produces net benefits. DESIGN--Meta-analysis of results of randomised controlled trials of cholesterol lowering treatments. METHODS--Published and unpublished data from all identified randomised controlled trials of cholesterol lowering treatments with six months or more follow up and with at least one death were included in the meta-analysis. The analyses were stratified by the rate of death from coronary heart disease in the control arms of the trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Death from all causes, from coronary heart disease, and from causes other than coronary heart disease. RESULTS--In the pooled analysis, net benefit in terms of total mortality from cholesterol lowering was seen only for trials including patients at very high initial risk of coronary heart disease (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.92). In a medium risk group no net effect was seen, and in the low risk group there were adverse treatment effects (1.22; 1.06 to 1.42). In a weighted regression analysis a significant (p < 0.001) trend of increasing benefit with increasing initial risk of coronary heart disease was shown. Raised mortality from causes other than coronary heart disease was seen in trials of drug treatment (1.21; 1.05 to 1.39) but not in the trials of non-drug treatments (1.02; 0.88 to 1.19). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that these results seem to have been stable as new trials appeared. CONCLUSION--Currently evaluated cholesterol lowering drugs seem to produce mortality benefits in only a small proportion of patients at very high risk of death from coronary heart disease. Population cholesterol screening could waste resources and even result in net harm in substantial groups of patients. Overall risk of coronary heart disease should be the main focus of clinical guidelines, and a cautious approach to the use of cholesterol lowering drugs should be advocated. Future trials should aim to clarify the level of risk above which treatment is of net benefit.     

Impact of Including Korean Randomized Controlled Trials in Cochrane Reviews of Acupuncture

Objective

Acupuncture is commonly practiced in Korea and is regularly evaluated in clinical trials. Although many Cochrane reviews of acupuncture include searches of both English and Chinese databases, there is no information on the value of searching Korean databases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of searching Korean databasesand journals for trials eligible for inclusion in existing Cochrane acupuncture reviews.

Methods

We searched 12 Korean databases and seven Korean journals to identify randomised trials meeting the inclusion criteria for acupuncture reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared risk of bias assessments of the Korean trials with the trials included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Where possible, we added data from the Korean trials to the existing meta-analyses in the relevant Cochrane review and conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results.

Results

Sixteen Korean trials (742 participants) met the inclusion criteria for eight Cochrane acupuncture reviews (125 trials; 13,041 participants). Inclusion of the Korean trials provided data for 20% of existing meta-analyses (24 out of 120). Inclusion of the Korean trials did not change the direction of effect in any of the existing meta-analyses. The effect size and heterogeneity remained mostly unchanged. In only one meta-analysis did the significance change. Compared to the studies included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews, the risk of bias in the Korean trials was higher in terms of outcome assessor blinding and allocation concealment.

Conclusions

Many Korean studies contributed additional data to the existing meta-analyses in Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Although inclusion of these studies did not alter the results of the meta-analyses, comprehensive searches of the literature are important to avoid potential language bias. The identification and inclusion of eligible Korean trials should be considered for reviews of acupuncture.     

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective To evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methods Two reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity. Main outcome measures Mortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results 20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.Conclusion Antithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.     

Pooling, meta-analysis, and the evaluation of drug safety

Background  

The "integrated safety report" of the drug registration files submitted to health authorities usually summarizes the rates of adverse events observed for a new drug, placebo or active control drugs by pooling the safety data across the trials. Pooling consists of adding the numbers of events observed in a given treatment group across the trials and dividing the results by the total number of patients included in this group. Because it considers treatment groups rather than studies, pooling ignores validity of the comparisons and is subject to a particular kind of bias, termed "Simpson's paradox." In contrast, meta-analysis and other stratified analyses are less susceptible to bias.     

Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses

Introduction

Positive results have a greater chance of being published and outcomes that are statistically significant have a greater chance of being fully reported. One consequence of research underreporting is that it may influence the sample of studies that is available for a meta-analysis. Smaller studies are often characterized by larger effects in published meta-analyses, which can be possibly explained by publication bias. We investigated the association between the statistical significance of the results and the probability of being included in recent meta-analyses.

Methods

For meta-analyses of clinical trials, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including statistically significant results favoring the treatment to the probability of including other results. For meta-analyses of other studies, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including biologically plausible statistically significant results to the probability of including other results. We applied a Bayesian selection model for meta-analyses that included at least 30 studies and were published in four major general medical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and PLOS Medicine) between 2008 and 2012.

Results

We identified 49 meta-analyses. The estimate of the relative risk was greater than one in 42 meta-analyses, greater than two in 16 meta-analyses, greater than three in eight meta-analyses, and greater than five in four meta-analyses. In 10 out of 28 meta-analyses of clinical trials, there was strong evidence that statistically significant results favoring the treatment were more likely to be included. In 4 out of 19 meta-analyses of observational studies, there was strong evidence that plausible statistically significant outcomes had a higher probability of being included.

Conclusions

Publication bias was present in a substantial proportion of large meta-analyses that were recently published in four major medical journals.     

Net efficacy adjusted for risk (NEAR): a simple procedure for measuring risk:benefit balance

Background

Although several mathematical models have been proposed to assess the risk:benefit of drugs in one measure, their use in practice has been rather limited. Our objective was to design a simple, easily applicable model. In this respect, measuring the proportion of patients who respond favorably to treatment without being affected by adverse drug reactions (ADR) could be a suitable endpoint. However, remarkably few published clinical trials report the data required to calculate this proportion. As an approach to the problem, we calculated the expected proportion of this type of patients.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Theoretically, responders without ADR may be obtained by multiplying the total number of responders by the total number of subjects that did not suffer ADR, and dividing the product by the total number of subjects studied. When two drugs are studied, the same calculation may be repeated for the second drug. Then, by constructing a 2×2 table with the expected frequencies of responders with and without ADR, and non-responders with and without ADR, the odds ratio and relative risk with their confidence intervals may be easily calculated and graphically represented on a logarithmic scale. Such measures represent “net efficacy adjusted for risk” (NEAR).We assayed the model with results extracted from several published clinical trials or meta-analyses. On comparing our results with those originally reported by the authors, marked differences were found in some cases, with ADR arising as a relevant factor to balance the clinical benefit obtained. The particular features of the adverse reaction that must be weighed against benefit is discussed in the paper.

Conclusion

NEAR representing overall risk-benefit may contribute to improving knowledge of drug clinical usefulness. As most published clinical trials tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate toxicity, our measure represents an effort to change this trend.     

Interventions to Increase the Uptake of Mammography amongst Low Income Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Two previous reviews found that access-enhancing interventions were effective in increasing mammography uptake amongst low-income women. The purpose of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the effect of interventions used to increase uptake of mammography amongst low-income women.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE (2002–April 2012) using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. Randomised controlled trials which aimed to increase mammography use in an asymptomatic low-income population and which had as an outcome receipt of a mammogram, were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the post-intervention difference in the proportion of women who had a mammogram in the intervention and control groups. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated summary estimates using random effects meta-analyses. Possible reasons for heterogeneity were investigated using sub-group analyses and meta-regression. Publication bias was assessed using Egger''s test.

Results

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, including 33 comparisons. Interventions increased the uptake of mammography in low income women by an additional 8.9% (95% CI 7.3 to 10.4%) compared to the control group. There was some evidence that interventions with multiple strategies were more effective than those with single strategies (p  = 0.03). There was some suggestion of publication bias. The quality of the included studies was often unclear. Omitting those with high risk of bias has little effect on the results.

Conclusions

Interventions can increase mammography uptake among low-income women, multiple interventions being the most effective strategy. Given the robustness of the results to sensitivity analyses, the results are likely to be reliable. The generalisability of the results beyond the US is unclear.     

Impact of and Correction for Outcome Misclassification in Cumulative Incidence Estimation

Cohort studies and clinical trials may involve multiple events. When occurrence of one of these events prevents the observance of another, the situation is called “competing risks”. A useful measure in such studies is the cumulative incidence of an event, which is useful in evaluating interventions or assessing disease prognosis. When outcomes in such studies are subject to misclassification, the resulting cumulative incidence estimates may be biased. In this work, we study the mechanism of bias in cumulative incidence estimation due to outcome misclassification. We show that even moderate levels of misclassification can lead to seriously biased estimates in a frequently unpredictable manner. We propose an easy to use estimator for correcting this bias that is uniformly consistent. Extensive simulations suggest that this method leads to unbiased estimates in practical settings. The proposed method is useful, both in settings where misclassification probabilities are known by historical data or can be estimated by other means, and for performing sensitivity analyses when the misclassification probabilities are not precisely known.     

Lipid management after acute coronary syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite advances in medical therapy and percutaneous revascularization, patients with acute coronary syndrome face a high risk of early, recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions targeting atherogenic lipoproteins may favorably modify this risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Two randomized clinical trials, MIRACL and PROVE-IT, demonstrated efficacy of early, intensive statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome. Recent observational and meta-analyses corroborate the findings of these trials. The benefit of intensive statin treatment appears to apply broadly to elderly as well as younger patients, and to patients with or without diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Randomized trials demonstrating the efficacy of early, intensive statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome employed fixed statin dosages, and there does not appear to be an initial or achieved LDL-cholesterol level below which benefit is absent. As such, broad application of intensive statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome may be preferable to titration of statin dose to achieve specific LDL goals. Low HDL-cholesterol predicts risk after acute coronary syndrome; therefore, pharmacologic interventions to raise HDL concentration or mimic its function may help reduce that risk. SUMMARY: Early, intensive statin therapy is safe and effective after acute coronary syndrome. Future research will determine whether drugs that raise or mimic HDL-cholesterol are effective adjuncts to statin therapy.     

The correlates of benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery in non-small-cell lung cancer: a metaregression analysis

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is widely used, it is not clear which subgroup of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients should be treated with this approach, and if a particular benefit associated with NCT exists. In this study, we aimed to investigate the potential correlates of benefit from NCT in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) utilizing a NCT arm (without radiotherapy) versus a control arm before surgery were included for metaregression analysis. All regression analyses were weighed for trial size. Separate analyses were conducted for trials recruiting patients with different stages of disease. Previously published measures of treatment efficacy were used for the purpose of this study, regardless of being published in full text or abstract form. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs, consisting of 3,615 patients, were selected. Histology, stage, various characteristics of the NCT protocol, and different trial features including trial quality score were not associated with the benefit of NCT. However, in trials of stage 3 disease only, there was a greater benefit in terms of reduction in mortality from NCT, if protocols with three chemotherapeutics were used (B = 0.18, t = 5.25, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We think that patients with stage 3 NSCLC are served better with NCT before surgery if protocols with three chemotherapy agents or equally effective combinations are used. In addition, the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is consistent with regard to disease and patient characteristics. This finding should be tested in future RCTs or individual patient data meta-analyses.     

Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions

BackgroundA large proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials report statistically significant results, even in the context of very low statistical power. The objective of the present study was to characterize the reporting of “positive” results in randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. We also assessed mindfulness-based therapy trial registrations for indications of possible reporting bias and reviewed recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether reporting biases were identified.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. The number of positive trials was described and compared to the number that might be expected if mindfulness-based therapy were similarly effective compared to individual therapy for depression. Trial registries were searched for mindfulness-based therapy registrations. CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS were also searched for mindfulness-based therapy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results108 (87%) of 124 published trials reported ≥1 positive outcome in the abstract, and 109 (88%) concluded that mindfulness-based therapy was effective, 1.6 times greater than the expected number of positive trials based on effect size d = 0.55 (expected number positive trials = 65.7). Of 21 trial registrations, 13 (62%) remained unpublished 30 months post-trial completion. No trial registrations adequately specified a single primary outcome measure with time of assessment. None of 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that effect estimates were overestimated due to reporting biases.ConclusionsThe proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials with statistically significant results may overstate what would occur in practice.     

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BackgroundRandomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline.Methods and findingsThe study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF.

In an individual patient data meta-analysis, Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes and colleagues investigate prevention of cardiovascular events with blood pressure-lowering treatment in those with and without atrial fibrillation.     

Comparison of random-effects meta-analysis models for the relative risk in the case of rare events: A simulation study

Pooling the relative risk (RR) across studies investigating rare events, for example, adverse events, via meta-analytical methods still presents a challenge to researchers. The main reason for this is the high probability of observing no events in treatment or control group or both, resulting in an undefined log RR (the basis of standard meta-analysis). Other technical challenges ensue, for example, the violation of normality assumptions, or bias due to exclusion of studies and application of continuity corrections, leading to poor performance of standard approaches. In the present simulation study, we compared three recently proposed alternative models (random-effects [RE] Poisson regression, RE zero-inflated Poisson [ZIP] regression, binomial regression) to the standard methods in conjunction with different continuity corrections and to different versions of beta-binomial regression. Based on our investigation of the models' performance in 162 different simulation settings informed by meta-analyses from the Cochrane database and distinguished by different underlying true effects, degrees of between-study heterogeneity, numbers of primary studies, group size ratios, and baseline risks, we recommend the use of the RE Poisson regression model. The beta-binomial model recommended by Kuss (2015) also performed well. Decent performance was also exhibited by the ZIP models, but they also had considerable convergence issues. We stress that these recommendations are only valid for meta-analyses with larger numbers of primary studies. All models are applied to data from two Cochrane reviews to illustrate differences between and issues of the models. Limitations as well as practical implications and recommendations are discussed; a flowchart summarizing recommendations is provided.     

Passive smoking and lung cancer: a publication bias?

To assess the likelihood of publication bias in a recent review of the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer the evidence from the reviewed papers was visualised on a “funnel” plot. In such a plot if the relative risks from various studies are plotted according to sample size they should scatter round some underlying true value, the scatter being greatest where the studies have the lowest statistical power—thus showing a “funnel” pattern. If there is publication bias and studies with non-significant results are not being published there should be a “gap” in the plot. The logarithm of the relative risks was plotted against the standard error of the logarithm of the relative risk (which was used instead of sample size as a measure of statistical uncertainty). The resulting plot was compatible with a publication bias but only in studies on men.Further studies of passive smoking and lung cancer in men seem to be warranted.     

Anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF)--drug review

Vitamin K-inhibiting anticoagulants, especially warfarin, have become standard treatment for reducing the incidence of strokes and systemic emboli in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The randomized controlled trials that form the scientific basis for the efficacy of anticoagulants in prophylaxis of embolic events show small but statistically significant benefit with warfarin and other vitamin K inhibitors. The generalizability of these randomized trials to clinical practice is highly questionable because of the low percentage of NVAF patients from the participating institutions that entered the trials, the relatively young age of the patients, and the superior anticoagulation monitoring compared with that in general practice. Indirect comparisons of warfarin with aspirin by looking at separate meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trials give potentially biased results. The meta-analyses of trials directly comparing warfarin with aspirin have diametrically opposing conclusions. In contrast to observational studies of general medical practice, randomized trials significantly underestimate the bleeding risks of warfarin. Anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis for NVAF cause about 17,000 major bleeds in the United States per year, of which about 4000 are fatal. In 5 randomized trials with follow-up periods of 1.3-2.3 years, 10% to 38% of patients permanently discontinued anticoagulants. The 2-year average follow up of patients in the randomized trials is too short to predict the long-term impact of anticoagulation on the natural history of NVAF. Aspirin should be preferred over anticoagulants in prophylaxis against cardiogenic embolism in NVAF patients.     

Update for primary healthcare providers: recent statin trials and revised National Cholesterol Education Program III guidelines

Statins produce large, clinically important beneficial effects on total low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides while raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol--each of which increases the risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD). In randomized trials of secondary and primary prevention, and their meta-analyses, statins confer statistically significant, clinically important reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD death. In 2001, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III included LDL as the primary target, recommending optional goals of < 100 mg/dL for high-risk patients, < 130 mg/dL for moderate-risk patients, and < 160 mg/dL for low-risk patients. We conducted a search of randomized trials of statins whose results were published since May 15, 2001. We extracted overall trial results and data on adverse events, when available. We reviewed 7 published trials of statins, some of which contributed to the recent addendum to the NCEP ATP III guidelines that recommend reducing LDL goals to < 70 for very high-risk and < 100 for moderately high-risk patients via statins. Data from these trials demonstrate that greater LDL reductions produce larger CVD benefits in various categories of high- and moderate-risk patients, including a large number of primary prevention patients with metabolic syndrome who should be treated as aggressively as patients who have survived a myocardial infarction or stroke. Together, these recent statin trials and the NCEP ATP III revised guidelines, if implemented by primary healthcare providers, would result in many more patients receiving statins of proven benefit and reassuring adverse event profile.     

Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy--I: Prevention of death,myocardial infarction,and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effects of "prolonged" antiplatelet therapy (that is, given for one month or more) on "vascular events" (non-fatal myocardial infarctions, non-fatal strokes, or vascular deaths) in various categories of patients. DESIGN--Overviews of 145 randomised trials of "prolonged" antiplatelet therapy versus control and 29 randomised comparisons between such antiplatelet regimens. SETTING--Randomised trials that could have been available by March 1990. SUBJECTS--Trials of antiplatelet therapy versus control included about 70,000 "high risk" patients (that is, with some vascular disease or other condition implying an increased risk of occlusive vascular disease) and 30,000 "low risk" subjects from the general population. Direct comparisons of different antiplatelet regimens involved about 10,000 high risk patients. RESULTS--In each of four main high risk categories of patients antiplatelet therapy was definitely protective. The percentages of patients suffering a vascular event among those allocated antiplatelet therapy versus appropriately adjusted control percentages (and mean scheduled treatment durations and net absolute benefits) were: (a) among about 20,000 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 10% antiplatelet therapy v 14% control (one month benefit about 40 vascular events avoided per 1000 patients treated (2P < 0.00001)); (b) among about 20,000 patients with a past history of myocardial infarction, 13% antiplatelet therapy v 17% control (two year benefit about 40/1000 (2P < 0.00001)); (c) among about 10,000 patients with a past history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 18% antiplatelet therapy v 22% control (three year benefit about 40/1000 (2P < 0.00001)); (d) among about 20,000 patients with some other relevant medical history (unstable angina, stable angina, vascular surgery, angioplasty, atrial fibrillation, valvular disease, peripheral vascular disease, etc), 9% v 14% in 4000 patients with unstable angina (six month benefit about 50/1000 (2P < 0.00001)) and 6% v 8% in 16,000 other high risk patients (one year benefit about 20/1000 (2P < 0.00001)). Reductions in vascular events were about one quarter in each of these four main categories and were separately statistically significant in middle age and old age, in men and women, in hypertensive and normotensive patients, and in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Taking all high risk patients together showed reductions of about one third in non-fatal myocardial infarction, about one third in non-fatal stroke, and about one third in vascular death (each 2P < 0.00001). There was no evidence that non-vascular deaths were increased, so in each of the four main high risk categories overall mortality was significantly reduced. The most widely tested antiplatelet regimen was "medium dose" (75-325 mg/day) aspirin. Doses throughout this range seemed similarly effective (although in an acute emergency it might be prudent to use an initial dose of 160-325 mg rather than about 75 mg). There was no appreciable evidence that either a higher aspirin dose or any other antiplatelet regimen was more effective than medium dose aspirin in preventing vascular events. The optimal duration of treatment for patients with a past history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack could not be determined directly because most trials lasted only one, two, or three years (average about two years). Nevertheless, there was significant (2P < 0.0001) further benefit between the end of year 1 and the end of year 3, suggesting that longer treatment might well be more effective. Among low risk recipients of "primary prevention" a significant reduction of one third in non-fatal myocardial infarction was, however, accompanied by a non-significant increase in stroke. Furthermore, the absolute reduction in vascular events was much smaller than for high risk patients despite a much longer treatment period (4.4% antiplatelet therapy v 4.8% control; five year