Dataset Information

Randomized trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions that include a placebo control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The difference in the benefit of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls has not been analysed systematically.

Methods and results

MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched through 29 March 2020. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions (including catheter-based interventions and pacemaker-like devices) investigating predefined primary outcomes were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios were calculated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Meta-regression analyses were performed to assess whether estimates of treatment effects were associated with methodological characteristics of trials. Thirty trials, including 4102 patients, were analysed. The overall risk of bias was judged to be low in only 43% of the trials. Ten trials (33%) demonstrated statistically significant superiority of invasive interventions over placebo controls for the respective predefined primary outcomes. In almost half of the 16 trials investigating continuous predefined primary outcomes, the SMD between the active and placebo procedure indicated a small (n = 4) to moderate (n = 3) treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In contrast, one trial indicated a small treatment effect in favour of the placebo procedure. In the remaining trials, there was no relevant treatment effect of active treatment over placebo. In trials with a protocol-mandated stable and symmetrical use of co-interventions, the superiority of active procedures vs. invasive placebo procedures was significantly larger as compared with trials with frequent or unbalanced changes in co-interventions (P for interaction 0.027).

Conclusions

The additional treatment effect of invasive cardiovascular interventions compared with placebo controls was small in most trials.

SUBMITTER: Lauder L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7360382 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and study selectionWe searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.Data synthesisEffect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.ResultsWe included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.ConclusionsThe generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.

Project description:Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Testosterone therapy is increasingly promoted. No randomized placebo-controlled trial has been implemented to assess the effect of testosterone therapy on cardiovascular events, although very high levels of androgens are thought to promote cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of placebo-controlled randomized trials of testosterone therapy among men lasting 12+ weeks reporting cardiovascular-related events. We searched PubMed through the end of 2012 using "("testosterone" or "androgen") and trial and ("random*")" with the selection limited to studies of men in English, supplemented by a bibliographic search of the World Health Organization trial registry. Two reviewers independently searched, selected and assessed study quality with differences resolved by consensus. Two statisticians independently abstracted and analyzed data, using random or fixed effects models, as appropriate, with inverse variance weighting. RESULTS: Of 1,882 studies identified 27 trials were eligible including 2,994, mainly older, men who experienced 180 cardiovascular-related events. Testosterone therapy increased the risk of a cardiovascular-related event (odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.18). The effect of testosterone therapy varied with source of funding (P-value for interaction 0.03), but not with baseline testosterone level (P-value for interaction 0.70). In trials not funded by the pharmaceutical industry the risk of a cardiovascular-related event on testosterone therapy was greater (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17) than in pharmaceutical industry funded trials (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of testosterone on cardiovascular-related events varied with source of funding. Nevertheless, overall and particularly in trials not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, exogenous testosterone increased the risk of cardiovascular-related events, with corresponding implications for the use of testosterone therapy.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.ResultsThis NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.ConclusionEach surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.Trial registrationThis study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).

Project description:ImportanceChanges in evidence-based practice and guideline recommendations depend on high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Commercial device and pharmaceutical manufacturers are frequently involved in the funding, design, conduct, and reporting of trials, the implications of which have not been recently analyzed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the design, outcomes, and reporting of contemporary randomized clinical trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions and their association with the funding source.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed published RCTs between January 1, 2008, to May 31, 2019. The trials included those involving coronary, vascular and structural interventional cardiology, and vascular and cardiac surgical procedures.Main outcomes and measuresWe assessed (1) trial characteristics, (2) finding of a statistically significant difference in the primary end point favoring the experimental intervention, (3) reporting of implied treatment advantage in trials without significant differences in primary end point, (4) existence of major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes, (5) number of patients whose outcomes would need to switch from a nonevent to an event to convert a significant difference in primary end point to nonsignificant, and (6) association with funding source.ResultsOf the 216 RCTs analyzed, 115 (53.2%) reported having commercial sponsorship. Most trials had 80% power to detect an estimated treatment effect of 30%, and 128 trials (59.3%) used composite primary end points. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) sample size was 502 (204-1702) patients, and the median (IQR) follow-up duration was 12 (1.0-14.4) months. Overall, 123 trials (57.0%) reported a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome favoring the experimental intervention; reporting strategies that implied an advantage were identified in 55 (65.5%) of 84 trials that reported nonsignificant differences. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a statistically significantly greater likelihood of favorable outcomes reporting (exponent of regression coefficient β, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.09-7.18; P = .03) and with the reporting of findings that are inconsistent with the trial results. Discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes were found in 82 trials (38.0%), without differences in trial sponsorship. A median (IQR) number of 5 (2.8-12.5) patients experiencing a different outcome would have change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a greater number of patients (exponent of regression coefficient β, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.66; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that contemporary RCTs of invasive cardiovascular interventions are relatively small and fragile, have short follow-up, and have limited power to detect large treatment effects. Commercial support appeared to be associated with differences in trial design, results, and reporting.

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Project description:A broad spectrum of novel targeted therapies with prime antitumor activity and/or ample control of hormonal symptoms together with an overall acceptable safety profile have emerged for patients with metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). In this systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis, the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched to assess and compare the safety profile of NEN treatments with special focus on the cardiovascular adverse effects of biotherapy and molecular targeted therapies (MTTs). Quality/risk of bias were assessed using GRADE criteria. Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with metastatic NENs, including medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) were included. A total of 3695 articles and 122 clinical trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov were screened. We included sixteen relevant RCTs comprising 3408 unique patients assigned to different treatments compared with placebo. All the included studies had a low risk of bias. We identified four drug therapies for NENs with eligible placebo-controlled RCTs: somatostatin analogs (SSAs), tryptophan hydroxylase (TPH) inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Grade 3 and 4 adverse effects (AE) were more often encountered in patients treated with mTOR inhibitors and TKI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.87-3.12 and OR: 3.41, 95% CI: 1.46-7.96, respectively) as compared to SSAs (OR:0.77, 95% CI: 0.47-1.27) and TPH inhibitors (OR:0.77, 95% CI: 0.35-1.69). MTOR inhibitors had the highest risk for serious cardiac AE (OR:3.28, 95% CI: 1.66-6.48) followed by TKIs (OR:1.51, 95% CI: 0.59-3.83). Serious vascular AE were more often encountered in NEN patients treated with mTOR inhibitors (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.64-4.64) and TKIs (OR:1.64, 95% CI: 0.35-7.78). Finally, patients on TKIs were at higher risk for new-onset or exacerbation of pre-existing hypertension (OR:3.31, 95% CI: 1.87-5.86). In conclusion, SSAs and TPH inhibitors appear to be safer as compared to mTOR inhibitors and TKIs with regards to their overall toxicity profile, and cardiovascular toxicities in particular. Special consideration should be given to a patient-tailored approach with anticipated toxicities of targeted NEN treatments together with assessment of cardiovascular comorbidities, assisting clinicians in treatment selection and early recognition/management of cardiovascular toxicities. This approach could improve patient compliance and preserve cardiovascular health and overall quality of life.