Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy

Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective: To assess the effects of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the risk of vascular events. Design: Meta-analysis of published and unpublished tabular data from randomised trials, with indirect estimation of the effects of traditional NSAIDs. Data sources: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2005); Food and Drug Administration records; and data on file from Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. Review methods: Eligible studies were randomised trials that included a comparison of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus placebo or a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus a traditional NSAID, of at least four weeks' duration, with information on serious vascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death). Individual investigators and manufacturers provided information on the number of patients randomised, numbers of vascular events, and the person time of follow-up for each randomised group. Results: In placebo comparisons, allocation to a selective COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a 42% relative increase in the incidence of serious vascular events (1.2%/year v 0.9%/year; rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.78; P = 0.003), with no significant heterogeneity among the different selective COX 2 inhibitors. This was chiefly attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction (0.6%/year v 0.3%/year; 1.86, 1.33 to 2.59; P = 0.0003), with little apparent difference in other vascular outcomes. Among trials of at least one year's duration (mean 2.7 years), the rate ratio for vascular events was 1.45 (1.12 to 1.89; P = 0.005). Overall, the incidence of serious vascular events was similar between a selective COX 2 inhibitor and any traditional NSAID (1.0%/year v 0.9/%year; 1.16, 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.1). However, statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.001) was found between trials of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus naproxen (1.57, 1.21 to 2.03) and of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus non-naproxen NSAIDs (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12). The summary rate ratio for vascular events, compared with placebo, was 0.92 (0.67 to 1.26) for naproxen, 1.51 (0.96 to 2.37) for ibuprofen, and 1.63 (1.12 to 2.37) for diclofenac. Conclusions: Selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with a moderate increase in the risk of vascular events, as are high dose regimens of ibuprofen and diclofenac, but high dose naproxen is not associated with such an excess.

Trials of the rhizomatic learner

How should educators respond to the whole phenomenon of ‘digital learning’? This question has been in vogue for the past twenty years or more and there is a need for a regular renewal of this question as societies change. This article will draw on some post-structuralist writing, particularly Deleuze and Guattari, to try to understand better the divide between the optimistic account and the pessimistic account of the effect of ICT on teaching and learning. It argues in particular 1) that ICT in its current form signals a paradigm shift in education—but this thesis is difficult either to prove or disprove; 2) that Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome provides us with a theoretical tool for understanding the pedagogical nature of this shift; 3) that this change is wider than literacy itself and announces posthuman elements in the socio-cultural environment of learning.

Reporting on data monitoring committees in neonatal randomised controlled trials is inconsistent

Aim: To evaluate the reported use of Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs), the frequency of interim analysis, pre-specified stopping rules and early trial termination in neonatal randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We reviewed neonatal RCTs published in four high impact general medical journals, specifically looking at safety issues including documented involvement of a DMC, stated interim analysis, stopping rules and early trial termination. We searched all journal issues over an 11-year period (2003-2013) and recorded predefined parameters on each item for RCTs meeting inclusion criteria. Results: Seventy neonatal trials were identified in four general medical journals: Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), British Medical Journal and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). 43 (61.4%) studies reported the presence of a DMC, 36 (51.4%) explicitly mentioned interim analysis; stopping rules were reported in 15 (21.4%) RCTs and 7 (10%) trials were terminated early. The NEJM most frequently reported these parameters compared to the other three journals reviewed. Conclusion: While the majority of neonatal RCTs report on DMC involvement and interim analysis there is still scope for improvement. Clear documentation of safety related issues should be a central component of reporting in neonatal trials involving newborn infants.

Treatment trials for neonatal seizures: the effect of design on sample size

Neonatal seizures are common in the neonatal intensive care unit. Clinicians treat these seizures with several anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to reduce seizures in a neonate. Current AEDs exhibit sub-optimal efficacy and several randomized control trials (RCT) of novel AEDs are planned. The aim of this study was to measure the influence of trial design on the required sample size of a RCT. We used seizure time courses from 41 term neonates with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy to build seizure treatment trial simulations. We used five outcome measures, three AED protocols, eight treatment delays from seizure onset (Td) and four levels of trial AED efficacy to simulate different RCTs. We performed power calculations for each RCT design and analysed the resultant sample size. We also assessed the rate of false positives, or placebo effect, in typical uncontrolled studies. We found that the false positive rate ranged from 5 to 85% of patients depending on RCT design. For controlled trials, the choice of outcome measure had the largest effect on sample size with median differences of 30.7 fold (IQR: 13.7–40.0) across a range of AED protocols, Td and trial AED efficacy (p<0.001). RCTs that compared the trial AED with positive controls required sample sizes with a median fold increase of 3.2 (IQR: 1.9–11.9; p<0.001). Delays in AED administration from seizure onset also increased the required sample size 2.1 fold (IQR: 1.7–2.9; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that RCTs in neonates treated with hypothermia required a median fold increase in sample size of 2.6 (IQR: 2.4–3.0) compared to trials in normothermic neonates (p<0.001). These results show that RCT design has a profound influence on the required sample size. Trials that use a control group, appropriate outcome measure, and control for differences in Td between groups in analysis will be valid and minimise sample size.