Dataset Information

Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from two randomised placebo controlled trials: meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether vertebroplasty is more effective than placebo for patients with pain of recent onset (≤ 6 weeks) or severe pain (score ≥ 8 on 0-10 numerical rating scale).

Design

Meta-analysis of combined individual patient level data.

Setting

Two multicentred randomised controlled trials of vertebroplasty; one based in Australia, the other in the United States.

Participants

209 participants (Australian trial n = 78, US trial n = 131) with at least one radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fracture. 57 (27%) participants had pain of recent onset (vertebroplasty n = 25, placebo n = 32) and 99 (47%) had severe pain at baseline (vertebroplasty n = 50, placebo n = 49).

Intervention

Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus a placebo procedure.

Main outcome measure

Scores for pain (0-10 scale) and function (modified, 23 item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire) at one month.

Results

For participants with pain of recent onset, between group differences in mean change scores at one month for pain and disability were 0.1 (95% confidence interval -1.4 to 1.6) and 0.2 (-3.0 to 3.4), respectively. For participants with severe pain at baseline, between group differences for pain and disability scores at one month were 0.3 (-0.8 to 1.5) and 1.4 (-1.2 to 3.9), respectively. At one month those in the vertebroplasty group were more likely to be using opioids.

Conclusions

Individual patient data meta-analysis from two blinded trials of vertebroplasty, powered for subgroup analyses, failed to show an advantage of vertebroplasty over placebo for participants with recent onset fracture or severe pain. These results do not support the hypothesis that selected subgroups would benefit from vertebroplasty.

SUBMITTER: Staples MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3133975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding patterns of relapse in patients who respond to antidepressant treatment can inform strategies for prevention of relapse. We aimed to identify distinct trajectories of depression severity, assess whether similar or different trajectory classes exist for patients who continued or discontinued active treatment, and test whether clinical predictors of trajectory class membership exist using pooled data from clinical trials.MethodsWe analysed individual patient data from four double-blind discontinuation clinical trials of duloxetine or fluoxetine versus placebo in major depression from before 2012 (n=1462). We modelled trajectories of relapse up to 26 weeks during double-blind treatment. Trajectories of depression severity, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, were identified in the entire sample, and separately in groups in which antidepressants had been continued or discontinued, using growth mixture models. Predictors of trajectory class membership were assessed with weighted logistic regression.FindingsWe identified similar relapse trajectories and two trajectories of stable depression scores in the normal range on active medication and on placebo. Active treatment significantly lowered the odds of membership in the relapse trajectory (odds ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·37-0·61), whereas female sex (1·56, 1·23-2·06), shorter length of time with clinical response by 1 week (1·10, 1·06-1·15), and higher Clinical Global Impression score at baseline (1·28, 1·01-1·62) increased the odds. Overall, the protective effect of antidepressant medication relative to placebo on the risk of being classified as a relapser was about 13% (33% vs 46%).InterpretationThe existence of similar relapse trajectories on active medication and on placebo suggests that there is no specific relapse signature associated with antidepressant discontinuation. Furthermore, continued treatment offers only modest protection against relapse. These data highlight the need to incorporate treatment strategies that prevent relapse as part of the treatment of depression.FundingNational Institutes of Health, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Alcohol Research Center, and National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). METHODS AND FINDINGS:Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI -7.57 to -2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63-2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06-6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: -6.78 SUs, 95% CI -12.11 to -1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22-4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: -9.27 SUs, 95% CI -13.97 to -4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13-6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. CONCLUSION:To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer on the outcomes of live birth, multiple live birth, miscarriage, preterm birth, term singleton birth, and low birth weight after fresh embryo transfer, and on the outcomes of cumulative live birth and multiple live birth after fresh and frozen embryo transfers.DesignOne stage meta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sourcesA systematic review of English and non-English articles from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to 2008). Additional studies were identified by contact with clinical experts and searches of bibliographies of all relevant primary articles. Search terms included embryo transfer, randomised controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, single embryo transfer, and double embryo transfer. Review methods Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of cleavage stage (day 2 or 3) elective single versus double embryo transfer after fresh or frozen in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were included. Trials were included if the intervention differed only in terms of the intended number of embryos to be transferred. Trials that involved only blastocyst (day five) transfers were excluded.ResultsIndividual patient data were received for every patient recruited to all eight eligible trials (n=1367). A total of 683 and 684 women randomised to the single and double embryo transfer arms, respectively, were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the two groups were comparable. The overall live birth rate in a fresh IVF cycle was lower after single (181/683, 27%) than double embryo transfer (285/683, 42%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.63), as was the multiple birth rate (3/181 (2%) v 84/285 (29%)) (0.04, 0.01 to 0.12). An additional frozen single embryo transfer, however, resulted in a cumulative live birth rate not significantly lower than the rate after one fresh double embryo transfer (132/350 (38%) v 149/353 (42%) (0.85, 0.62 to 1.15), with a minimal cumulative risk of multiple birth (1/132 (1%) v 47/149 (32%)). The odds of a term singleton birth (that is, over 37 weeks) after elective single embryo transfer was almost five times higher than the odds after double embryo transfer (4.93, 2.98 to 8.18).ConclusionsElective single embryo transfer results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with double embryo transfer. Although this strategy yields a lower pregnancy rate than a double embryo transfer in a fresh IVF cycle, this difference is almost completely overcome by an additional frozen single embryo transfer cycle. The multiple pregnancy rate after elective single embryo transfer is comparable with that observed in spontaneous pregnancies.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics.DesignIndividual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesSearches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding.ResultsThe meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen.ConclusionsP2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020176853.

Project description:BackgroundThe "real" effect size of a medical therapy is constant over time. In contrast, the effect size reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may change over time because the sum of all kinds of bias influencing the reported effectiveness is not necessarily constant. As this would affect the validity of meta-analyses, we tested the hypothesis that the reported effect size decreases over time. Furthermore, we tested three hypotheses that would explain a possible change.MethodsBecause of well established outcome measures, the lipid-lowering drugs Pravastatin and Atorvastatin (serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C) and the anti-glaucoma drugs Timolol and Latanoprost (intraocular pressure, IOP) were chosen for this investigation. Studies were identified by a standardized MEDLINE search. RCTs investigating the above identified medications administered as monotherapy, and in defined dosages, were included. Publication year, baseline (= pre-treatment value in the treatment group of interest) and post intervention means, number of patients and the assignment to experimental or control group were extracted for each study.ResultsA total of 625 citations were screened; 206 met the inclusion criteria. The reported effect size of Pravastatin (change of reported effect size in five years: -3.22% LDL-C, P < .0001), Timolol (-0.56 mmHg, P < .0001) and Latanoprost (-1.78 mmHg, P = .0074) decreased over time, while there was no significant change for Atorvastatin (+0.31% LDL-C, P = .8618). Multiple regression analysis showed that baseline values were the most important influencing factor; study size or treatment group did not play a significant role.ConclusionThe effectiveness of medical therapies reported in RCTs decreases over time in three of the four investigated pharmaceuticals, caused mainly by baseline differences. We call this phenomenon "fading of reported effectiveness". Under this condition the validity of a meta-analysis may be impaired. Therefore we propose to observe this phenomenon in future meta-analyses in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency.

Project description:Background:Ramucirumab, the human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, has been approved for treating gastric/gastroesophageal junction, non-small-cell lung, and metastatic colorectal cancers. With the completion of six global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials across multiple tumor types, an opportunity now exists to further establish the safety parameters of ramucirumab across a large patient population. Materials and methods:An individual patient meta-analysis across the six completed phase III trials was conducted and the relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using fixed-effects or mixed-effects models for all-grade and high-grade adverse events (AEs) possibly related to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition. The number needed to harm was also calculable due to the placebo-controlled nature of all six registration standard trials. Results:A total of 4996 treated patients (N?=?2748 in the ramucirumab arm and N?=?2248 in the control, placebo arm) were included in this meta-analysis. Arterial thromboembolic events [ATE; all-grade, RR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3; high-grade (grade??3), RR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.7], venous thromboembolic events (VTE; all-grade, RR: 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1; high-grade, RR: 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.2), high-grade bleeding (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.5), and high-grade gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7) did not demonstrate a definite increased risk with ramucirumab. A higher percentage of hypertension, proteinuria, low-grade (grade 1-2) bleeding, GI perforation, infusion-related reaction, and wound-healing complications were observed in the ramucirumab arm compared with the control arm. Conclusions:Ramucirumab may be distinct among antiangiogenic agents in terms of ATE, VTE, high-grade bleeding, or high-grade GI bleeding by showing no clear evidence for an increased risk of these AEs in this meta-analysis of a large and diverse patient population. Ramucirumab is consistent with other angiogenic inhibitors in the risk of developing certain AEs. Clinical Trial Numbers: NCT00917384 (REGARD), NCT01170663 (RAINBOW), NCT01168973 (REVEL), NCT01183780 (RAISE), NCT01140347 (REACH), and NCT00703326 (ROSE).

Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants are commonly used worldwide to treat major depressive disorder. Symptomatic response to antidepressants can vary depending on differences between individuals; however, this variability may reflect nonspecific or random factors.ObjectivesTo investigate the assumption of systematic variability in symptomatic response to antidepressants and to assess whether this variability is associated with severity of major depressive disorder, antidepressant class, or year of study publication.Data sourcesData used were from a recent network meta-analysis of acute treatment with licensed antidepressants in adults with major depressive disorder. The following databases were searched from inception to January 8, 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and PsycINFO. Additional sources were international trial registries, drug approval agency websites, and key scientific journals.Study selectionAnalysis was restricted to double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials with available data at the study's end point.Data extraction and synthesisBaseline and end point means, SDs, number of participants in each group, antidepressant class, and publication year were extracted. The data were analyzed between August 14 and November 18, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresWith the use of validated methods, coefficients of variation were derived for antidepressants and placebo, and their ratios were calculated to compare outcome variability between antidepressant and placebo. Ratios were entered into a random-effects model, with the expectation that response to antidepressants would be more variable than response to placebo. Analysis was repeated after stratifying by baseline severity of depression, antidepressant class (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and vilazodone; serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors: desvenlafaxine and venlafaxine; norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor: bupropion; noradrenergic agents: amitriptyline and reboxetine; and other antidepressants: agomelatine, mirtazapine, and trazodone), and publication year.ResultsIn the 87 eligible randomized placebo-controlled trials (17 540 unique participants), there was significantly more variability in response to antidepressants than to placebo (coefficients of variation ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17; P < .001). Baseline severity of depression did not moderate variability in response to antidepressants. Variability in response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was lower than variability in response to noradrenergic agents (coefficients of variation ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P = .01), as was the variability in response to other antidepressants compared with noradrenergic agents (coefficients of variation ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97; P = .001). Variability also tended to be lower in studies that were published more recently, with coefficients of variation changing by a value of 0.005 (95% CI, 0.002-0.008; P = .003) for every year a study is more recent.Conclusions and relevanceIndividual differences may be systematically associated with responses to antidepressants in major depressive disorder beyond placebo effects or statistical factors. This study provides empirical support for identifying moderators and personalizing antidepressant treatment.