Project description:BackgroundMeta-analyses of individual-level data from randomised trials are often required to detect clinically worthwhile effects. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration, which includes data from numerous large long-term statin trials, is conducting a review of the effects of statin therapy on all adverse events collected in those trials. This article describes the approaches used and challenges faced to systematically capture and categorise the data.MethodsProtocols, statistical analysis plans, case report forms, clinical study reports and datasets were obtained, reviewed and checked. Relevant baseline and follow-up data from each trial was then reorganised into standardised formats based upon the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model. Adverse event data were organised and coded (automatically or, where necessary, manually) according to a common medical dictionary based upon the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.ResultsData from 23 double-blind statin trials and 5 open-label statin trials were provided, either through direct data transfer or through online access platforms. Together, these trials provided 845 datasets containing over 38 million records relating to 30,495 study variables and 181,973 randomised participants. Of the 46 Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model domains that could potentially have been used to organise the data, the 13 most relevant to the project were identified and utilised, including 6 domains related to post-randomisation adverse events. Nearly 1.2 million adverse events were extracted and mapped to over 45,000 unique adverse event terms. Of these adverse events, 99% were coded to a Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 'lower level term', with the remainder coded to a 'higher level term' or, very rarely, only a 'higher level group term'.ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of adverse event data from the large randomised trials of statins, approaches based on common standards for data organisation and classification have provided a resource capable of allowing reliable and rapid evaluation of any previously unknown benefits or hazards of statin therapy.

Project description:BackgroundStatin therapy is effective for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and is widely prescribed, but there are persisting concerns that statin therapy might frequently cause muscle pain or weakness. We aimed to address these through an individual participant data meta-analysis of all recorded adverse muscle events in large, long-term, randomised, double-blind trials of statin therapy.MethodsRandomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years, and involved a double-blind comparison of statin versus placebo or of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen. We analysed individual participant data from 19 double-blind trials of statin versus placebo (n=123 940) and four double-blind trials of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen (n=30 724). Standard inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses of the effects on muscle outcomes were conducted according to a prespecified protocol.FindingsAmong 19 placebo-controlled trials (mean age 63 years [SD 8], with 34 533 [27·9%] women, 59 610 [48·1%] participants with previous vascular disease, and 22 925 [18·5%] participants with diabetes), during a weighted average median follow-up of 4·3 years, 16 835 (27·1%) allocated statin versus 16 446 (26·6%) allocated placebo reported muscle pain or weakness (rate ratio [RR] 1·03; 95% CI 1·01-1·06). During year 1, statin therapy produced a 7% relative increase in muscle pain or weakness (1·07; 1·04-1·10), corresponding to an absolute excess rate of 11 (6-16) events per 1000 person-years, which indicates that only one in 15 ([1·07-1·00]/1·07) of these muscle-related reports by participants allocated to statin therapy were actually due to the statin. After year 1, there was no significant excess in first reports of muscle pain or weakness (0·99; 0·96-1·02). For all years combined, more intensive statin regimens (ie, 40-80 mg atorvastatin or 20-40 mg rosuvastatin once per day) yielded a higher RR than less intensive or moderate-intensity regimens (1·08 [1·04-1·13] vs 1·03 [1·00-1·05]) compared with placebo, and a small excess was present (1·05 [0·99-1·12]) for more intensive regimens after year 1. There was no clear evidence that the RR differed for different statins, or in different clinical circumstances. Statin therapy yielded a small, clinically insignificant increase in median creatine kinase values of approximately 0·02 times the upper limit of normal.InterpretationStatin therapy caused a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain. Most (>90%) of all reports of muscle symptoms by participants allocated statin therapy were not due to the statin. The small risks of muscle symptoms are much lower than the known cardiovascular benefits. There is a need to review the clinical management of muscle symptoms in patients taking a statin.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Project description:BackgroundThe cardiovascular effects of treating older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) are uncertain. Although concerns have been raised regarding a potential increase in cardiovascular side effects from thyroid hormone replacement, undertreatment may also increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).ObjectiveTo determine the effects of levothyroxine treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with SCH.MethodsCombined data of two parallel randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trials TRUST (Thyroid hormone Replacement for Untreated older adults with Subclinical hypothyroidism - a randomised placebo controlled Trial) and IEMO80+ (the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine in Old Age 80-plus thyroid trial) were analysed as one-stage individual participant data. Participants aged ≥65 years for TRUST (n=737) and ≥80 years for IEMO80+ (n=105) with SCH, defined by elevated TSH with fT4 within the reference range, were included. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or levothyroxine, with titration of the dose until TSH level was within the reference range. Cardiovascular events and cardiovascular side effects of overtreatment (new-onset atrial fibrillation and heart failure) were investigated, including stratified analyses according to CVD history and age.ResultsThe median [IQR] age was 75.0 [69.7-81.1] years, and 448 participants (53.2%) were women. The mean TSH was 6.38± SD 5.7 mIU/L at baseline and decreased at 1 year to 5.66 ± 3.3 mIU/L in the placebo group, compared with 3.66 ± 2.1 mIU/L in the levothyroxine group (p<0.001), at a median dose of 50 μg. Levothyroxine did not significantly change the risk of any of the prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular events (HR 0.74 [0.41-1.25]), atrial fibrillation (HR 0.69 [0.32-1.52]), or heart failure (0.41 [0.13-1.35]), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.28 [0.54-3.03]), irrespective of history of CVD and age.ConclusionTreatment with levothyroxine did not significantly change the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism, irrespective of a history of cardiovascular disease and age.Clinical trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT01660126] (TRUST); Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3851 (IEMO80+).

Project description:IntroductionTrauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapies are the first-line treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents. Nevertheless, open questions remain with respect to efficacy: why does this first-line treatment not work for everyone? For whom does it work best? Individual clinical trials often do not provide sufficient statistical power to examine and substantiate moderating factors. To overcome the issue of limited power, an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials evaluating forms of trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years will be conducted.Methods and analysisWe will update the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline literature search from 2018 with an electronic search in the databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL with the terms (trauma* OR stress*) AND (cognitive therap* OR psychotherap*) AND (trial* OR review*). Electronic searches will be supplemented by a comprehensive grey literature search in archives and trial registries. Only randomised trials that used any manualised psychological treatment-that is a trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for children and adolescents-will be included. The primary outcome variable will be child-reported posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) post-treatment. Proxy-reports (teacher, parent and caregiver) will be analysed separately. Secondary outcomes will include follow-up assessments of PTSS, PTSD diagnosis and symptoms of comorbid disorders such as depression, anxiety-related and externalising problems. Random-effects models applying restricted maximum likelihood estimation will be used for all analyses. We will use the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to measure risk of bias.Ethics and disseminationContributing study authors need to have permission to share anonymised data. Contributing studies will be required to remove patient identifiers before providing their data. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42019151954.

Project description:Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits.First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials.Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings.PROSPERO CRD42013003526.

Project description:BackgroundRecent lipid guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary artery disease. To clarify the evidence for this recommendation, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared different intensities of statin therapy.MethodsWe searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registery of Controlled Trials, Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials published up to July 19, 2007, that compared statin regimens of different intensities in adults with coronary artery disease and that reported cardiovascular events or mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (OR).ResultsA total of 7 trials (29 395 patients) were included. Compared with less intensive statin regimens, more intensive regimens further reduced LDL levels (0.72 mmol/L reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.84 mmol/L), and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.91) and stroke (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95). Although there was no effect on mortality among patients with chronic coronary artery disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.14), all-cause mortality was reduced among patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with more intensive statin regimens (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93). Compared with lower intensity regimens, more intensive regimens were associated with small absolute increases in rates of drug discontinuation (2.5%), elevated levels of aminotransferases (1%) and myopathy (0.5%), and there was no difference in noncardiovascular mortality. All 7 trials reported events by randomization arm rather than by LDL level achieved. About half of the patients treated with more intensive statin therapy did not achieve an LDL level of less than 2.0 mmol/L, and none of the trials tested combination therapies.InterpretationOur analysis supports the use of more intensive statin regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease. There is insufficient evidence to advocate treating to particular LDL targets, using combination lipid-lowering therapy to achieve these targets or for using more intensive regimens in patients without established coronary artery disease.

Project description:BackgroundIt remains unclear when standard systematic reviews and meta-analyses that rely on published aggregate data (AD) can provide robust clinical conclusions. We aimed to compare the results from a large cohort of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD) with meta-analyses of published AD, to establish when the latter are most likely to be reliable and when the IPD approach might be required.Methods and findingsWe used 18 cancer systematic reviews that included IPD meta-analyses: all of those completed and published by the Meta-analysis Group of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit from 1991 to 2010. We extracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports and compared these with IPD equivalents at both the trial and meta-analysis level. We also extracted or estimated the number of events. We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from published AD differed on average from those from IPD. We assessed agreement, and whether this was associated with trial or meta-analysis characteristics, using the approach of Bland and Altman. The 18 systematic reviews comprised 238 unique trials or trial comparisons, including 37,082 participants. A HR and SE could be generated for 127 trials, representing 53% of the trials and approximately 79% of eligible participants. On average, trial HRs derived from published AD were slightly more in favour of the research interventions than those from IPD (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.95, p = 0.007), but the limits of agreement show that for individual trials, the HRs could deviate substantially. These limits narrowed with an increasing number of participants (p < 0.001) or a greater number (p < 0.001) or proportion (p < 0.001) of events in the AD. On average, meta-analysis HRs from published AD slightly tended to favour the research interventions whether based on fixed-effect (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.97, p = 0.088) or random-effects (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.96, p = 0.044) models, but the limits of agreement show that for individual meta-analyses, agreement was much more variable. These limits tended to narrow with an increasing number (p = 0.077) or proportion of events (p = 0.11) in the AD. However, even when the information size of the AD was large, individual meta-analysis HRs could still differ from their IPD equivalents by a relative 10% in favour of the research intervention to 5% in favour of control. We utilised the results to construct a decision tree for assessing whether an AD meta-analysis includes sufficient information, and when estimates of effects are most likely to be reliable. A lack of power at the meta-analysis level may have prevented us identifying additional factors associated with the reliability of AD meta-analyses, and we cannot be sure that our results are generalisable to all outcomes and effect measures.ConclusionsIn this study we found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large. Based on these findings, we provide guidance for determining systematically when standard AD meta-analysis will likely generate robust clinical conclusions, and when the IPD approach will add considerable value.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly in network meta-analysis (NMA), there is a need to incorporate non-randomised evidence to estimate relative treatment effects, and in particular in cases with limited randomised evidence, sometimes resulting in disconnected networks of treatments. When combining different sources of data, complex NMA methods are required to address issues associated with participant selection bias, incorporating single-arm trials (SATs), and synthesising a mixture of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD). We develop NMA methods which synthesise data from SATs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using a mixture of IPD and AD, for a dichotomous outcome.MethodsWe propose methods under both contrast-based (CB) and arm-based (AB) parametrisations, and extend the methods to allow for both within- and across-trial adjustments for covariate effects. To illustrate the methods, we use an applied example investigating the effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We applied the methods to a dataset obtained from a literature review consisting of 14 RCTs and an artificial dataset consisting of IPD from two SATs and AD from 12 RCTs, where the artificial dataset was created by removing the control arms from the only two trials assessing tocilizumab in the original dataset.ResultsWithout adjustment for covariates, the CB method with independent baseline response parameters (CBunadjInd) underestimated the effectiveness of tocilizumab when applied to the artificial dataset compared to the original dataset, albeit with significant overlap in posterior distributions for treatment effect parameters. The CB method with exchangeable baseline response parameters produced effectiveness estimates in agreement with CBunadjInd, when the predicted baseline response estimates were similar to the observed baseline response. After adjustment for RA duration, there was a reduction in across-trial heterogeneity in baseline response but little change in treatment effect estimates.ConclusionsOur findings suggest incorporating SATs in NMA may be useful in some situations where a treatment is disconnected from a network of comparator treatments, due to a lack of comparative evidence, to estimate relative treatment effects. The reliability of effect estimates based on data from SATs may depend on adjustment for covariate effects, although further research is required to understand this in more detail.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Statins reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent vascular events, but their net effects in people at low risk of vascular events remain uncertain. METHODS:This meta-analysis included individual participant data from 22 trials of statin versus control (n=134,537; mean LDL cholesterol difference 1·08 mmol/L; median follow-up 4·8 years) and five trials of more versus less statin (n=39,612; difference 0·51 mmol/L; 5·1 years). Major vascular events were major coronary events (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death), strokes, or coronary revascularisations. Participants were separated into five categories of baseline 5-year major vascular event risk on control therapy (no statin or low-intensity statin) (<5%, ?5% to <10%, ?10% to <20%, ?20% to <30%, ?30%); in each, the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction was estimated. FINDINGS:Reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin reduced the risk of major vascular events (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77-0·81, per 1·0 mmol/L reduction), largely irrespective of age, sex, baseline LDL cholesterol or previous vascular disease, and of vascular and all-cause mortality. The proportional reduction in major vascular events was at least as big in the two lowest risk categories as in the higher risk categories (RR per 1·0 mmol/L reduction from lowest to highest risk: 0·62 [99% CI 0·47-0·81], 0·69 [99% CI 0·60-0·79], 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·85], 0·81 [99% CI 0·77-0·86], and 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·84]; trend p=0·04), which reflected significant reductions in these two lowest risk categories in major coronary events (RR 0·57, 99% CI 0·36-0·89, p=0·0012, and 0·61, 99% CI 0·50-0·74, p<0·0001) and in coronary revascularisations (RR 0·52, 99% CI 0·35-0·75, and 0·63, 99% CI 0·51-0·79; both p<0·0001). For stroke, the reduction in risk in participants with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10% (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·76, 99% CI 0·61-0·95, p=0·0012) was also similar to that seen in higher risk categories (trend p=0·3). In participants without a history of vascular disease, statins reduced the risks of vascular (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·85, 95% CI 0·77-0·95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0·91, 95% CI 0·85-0·97), and the proportional reductions were similar by baseline risk. There was no evidence that reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin increased cancer incidence (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 1·00, 95% CI 0·96-1·04), cancer mortality (RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·06), or other non-vascular mortality. INTERPRETATION:In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered. FUNDING:British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council; Cancer Research UK; European Community Biomed Programme; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; National Heart Foundation, Australia.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets