Impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular events and mortality among older adults: meta-analysis of individual participant data from prospective cohort studies of the CHANCES consortium

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of smoking and smoking cessation on cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary events, and stroke events in people aged 60 and older, and to calculate and report risk advancement periods for cardiovascular mortality in addition to traditional epidemiological relative risk measures.

DESIGN: Individual participant meta-analysis using data from 25 cohorts participating in the CHANCES consortium. Data were harmonised, analysed separately employing Cox proportional hazard regression models, and combined by meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Overall, 503,905 participants aged 60 and older were included in this study, of whom 37,952 died from cardiovascular disease. Random effects meta-analysis of the association of smoking status with cardiovascular mortality yielded a summary hazard ratio of 2.07 (95% CI 1.82 to 2.36) for current smokers and 1.37 (1.25 to 1.49) for former smokers compared with never smokers. Corresponding summary estimates for risk advancement periods were 5.50 years (4.25 to 6.75) for current smokers and 2.16 years (1.38 to 2.39) for former smokers. The excess risk in smokers increased with cigarette consumption in a dose-response manner, and decreased continuously with time since smoking cessation in former smokers. Relative risk estimates for acute coronary events and for stroke events were somewhat lower than for cardiovascular mortality, but patterns were similar.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study corroborates and expands evidence from previous studies in showing that smoking is a strong independent risk factor of cardiovascular events and mortality even at older age, advancing cardiovascular mortality by more than five years, and demonstrating that smoking cessation in these age groups is still beneficial in reducing the excess risk.

Primary care organisational interventions for secondary prevention of IHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is the most common cause of death worldwide.

Aim: To determine the long-term impact of organisational interventions for secondary prevention of IHD.

Design and setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from CENTRAL, MEDLINE®, Embase, and CINAHL published January 2007 to January 2013.

Method: Searches were conducted for randomised controlled trials of patients with established IHD, with long-term follow-up, of cardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change in primary care or community settings. A random-effects model was used and risk ratios were calculated.

Results: Five studies were included with 4005 participants. Meta-analysis of four studies with mortality data at 4.7–6 years showed that organisational interventions were associated with approximately 20% reduced mortality, with a risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.93), and a RR for cardiac-related mortality of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.94). Two studies reported mortality data at 10 years. Analysis of these data showed no significant differences between groups. There were insufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of interventions on hospital admissions. Additional analyses showed no significant association between organisational interventions and risk factor management or appropriate prescribing at 4.7–6 years.

Conclusion: Cardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change are associated with a reduced risk of death for at least 4–6 years. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this beneficial effect is maintained indefinitely.

The effect of altering a single component of a rehabilitation programme on the functional recovery of stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of altering a single component of a rehabilitation programme (e.g. adding bilateral practice alone) on functional recovery after stroke, defined using a measure of activity.

DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted of Medline/Pubmed, CINAHL and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Randomized controlled trials were included if all participants received the same base intervention, and the experimental group experienced alteration of a single component of the training programme. This could be manipulation of an intrinsic component of training (e.g. intensity) or the addition of a discretionary component (e.g. augmented feedback). One reviewer extracted the data and another independently checked a subsample (20%). Quality was appraised according to the PEDro scale.

RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (n = 1724 participants) were included. These evaluated nine training components: mechanical degrees of freedom, intensity of practice, load, practice schedule, augmented feedback, bilateral movements, constraint of the unimpaired limb, mental practice and mirrored-visual feedback. Manipulation of the mechanical degrees of freedom of the trunk during reaching and the addition of mental practice during upper limb training were the only single components found to independently enhance recovery of function after stroke.

CONCLUSION: This review provides limited evidence to support the supposition that altering a single component of a rehabilitation programme realises greater functional recovery for stroke survivors. Further investigations are required to determine the most effective single components of rehabilitation programmes, and the combinations that may enhance functional recovery.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates have profound effects on bone physiology, and could modify the process of metastasis. We undertook collaborative meta-analyses to clarify the risks and benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in breast cancer.

METHODS: We sought individual patient data from all unconfounded trials in early breast cancer that randomised between bisphosphonate and control. Primary outcomes were recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer mortality. Primary subgroup investigations were site of first distant recurrence (bone or other), menopausal status (postmenopausal [combining natural and artificial] or not), and bisphosphonate class (aminobisphosphonate [eg, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate] or other [ie, clodronate]). Intention-to-treat log-rank methods yielded bisphosphonate versus control first-event rate ratios (RRs).

FINDINGS: We received data on 18 766 women (18 206 [97%] in trials of 2-5 years of bisphosphonate) with median follow-up 5·6 woman-years, 3453 first recurrences, and 2106 subsequent deaths. Overall, the reductions in recurrence (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·87-1·01; 2p=0·08), distant recurrence (0·92, 0·85-0·99; 2p=0·03), and breast cancer mortality (0·91, 0·83-0·99; 2p=0·04) were of only borderline significance, but the reduction in bone recurrence was more definite (0·83, 0·73-0·94; 2p=0·004). Among premenopausal women, treatment had no apparent effect on any outcome, but among 11 767 postmenopausal women it produced highly significant reductions in recurrence (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78-0·94; 2p=0·002), distant recurrence (0·82, 0·74-0·92; 2p=0·0003), bone recurrence (0·72, 0·60-0·86; 2p=0·0002), and breast cancer mortality (0·82, 0·73-0·93; 2p=0·002). Even for bone recurrence, however, the heterogeneity of benefit was barely significant by menopausal status (2p=0·06 for trend with menopausal status) or age (2p=0·03), and it was non-significant by bisphosphonate class, treatment schedule, oestrogen receptor status, nodes, tumour grade, or concomitant chemotherapy. No differences were seen in non-breast cancer mortality. Bone fractures were reduced (RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·97; 2p=0·02).

INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival, but there is definite benefit only in women who were postmenopausal when treatment began.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.

Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials

BACKGROUND: The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain.

METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31 920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs).

FINDINGS: In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·64, 95% CI 0·52-0·78) and 2-4 (RR 0·80, 0·68-0·93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12·1% vs 14·2%; RR 0·85, 0·75-0·96; 2p=0·009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0-1 (RR 0·74, 0·62-0·89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2-4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0·90, 0·81-0·99; 2p=0·045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0·89, 0·78-1·03; 2p=0·11). In the comparison of 2-3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2-4 (RR 0·56, 0·46-0·67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8·7% vs 10·1%; 2p=0·015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0·70, 0·64-0·77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0·93, 0·86-1·01; 2p=0·08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0·79, 0·67-0·92), and subsequently (RR 0·89, 0·81-0·99), and for all periods combined (RR 0·86, 0·80-0·94; 2p=0·0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0·88, 0·82-0·94; 2p=0·0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0·4% vs 1·2%; RR 0·33, 0·21-0·51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8·2% vs 5·5%; RR 1·42, 1·28-1·57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar.

INTERPRETATION: Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments differ, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use

Jayne Tierney and colleagues offer guidance on how to spot a well-designed and well-conducted individual participant data meta-analysis.

Summary Points 

• Systematic reviews are most commonly based on aggregate data extracted from publications or obtained from trial investigators. 

• Systematic reviews involving the central collection and analysis of individual participant data (IPD) usually are larger-scale, international, collaborative projects that can bring about substantial improvements to the quantity and quality of data, give greater scope in the analyses, and provide more detailed and robust results. 

• The process of collecting, checking, and analysing IPD is more complex than for aggregate data, and not all IPD meta-analyses are done to the same standard, making it difficult for researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, and publishers to judge their quality. 

• Following our step-by-step guide will help reviewers and users of IPD meta-analyses to understand them better and recognise those that are well designed and conducted and so help ensure that policy, practice, and research are informed by robust evidence about the effects of interventions.

How individual participant data meta-analyses have influenced trial design, conduct, and analysis

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses have impacted directly on the design and conduct of trials and highlight other advantages IPD might offer.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Potential examples of the impact of IPD meta-analyses on trials were identified at an international workshop, attended by individuals with experience in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses and knowledge of trials in their respective clinical areas. Experts in the field who did not attend were asked to provide any further examples. We then examined relevant trial protocols, publications, and Web sites to verify the impacts of the IPD meta-analyses. A subgroup of workshop attendees sought further examples and identified other aspects of trial design and conduct that may inform IPD meta-analyses.

RESULTS: We identified 52 examples of IPD meta-analyses thought to have had a direct impact on the design or conduct of trials. After screening relevant trial protocols and publications, we identified 28 instances where IPD meta-analyses had clearly impacted on trials. They have influenced the selection of comparators and participants, sample size calculations, analysis and interpretation of subsequent trials, and the conduct and analysis of ongoing trials, sometimes in ways that would not possible with systematic reviews of aggregate data. We identified additional potential ways that IPD meta-analyses could be used to influence trials.

CONCLUSIONS: IPD meta-analysis could be better used to inform the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of trials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to report and explore the survival of dental veneers constructed from non-feldspathic porcelain over 5 and 10 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 4,294 articles were identified through a systematic search involving all databases in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, specific journals (hand-search), conference proceedings, clinical trials registers, and collegiate contacts. Articles, abstracts, and gray literature were sought by two independent researchers. There were no language limitations. One hundred sixteen studies were identified for full-text assessment, with 10 included in the analysis (5 qualitative, 5 quantitative). Study characteristics and survival (Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative survival and 95% confidence interval [CI]) were extracted or recalculated. A failed veneer was one which required an intervention that disrupted the original marginal integrity, had been partially or completely lost, or had lost retention more than twice. A meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis of Empress veneers was completed, with an assessment of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. Clinical heterogeneity was explored for results of all veneering materials from included studies.

RESULTS: Within the 10 studies, veneers were fabricated with IPS Empress, IPS Empress 2, Cerinate, and Cerec computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) materials VITA Mark I, VITA Mark II, Ivoclar ProCad. The meta-analysis showed the pooled estimate for Empress veneers to be 92.4% (95% CI: 89.8% to 95.0%) for 5-year survival and 66% to 94% (95% CI: 55% to 99%) for 10 years. Data regarding other non-feldspathic porcelain materials were lacking, with only a single study each reporting outcomes for Empress 2, Cerinate, and various Cerec porcelains over 5 years. The sensitivity analysis showed data from one study had an influencing and stabilizing effect on the 5-year pooled estimate.

CONCLUSION: The long-term outcome (> 5 years) of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers is sparsely reported in the literature. This systematic review indicates that the 5-year cumulative estimated survival for etchable non-feldspathic porcelain veneers is over 90%. Outcomes may prove clinically acceptable with time, but evidence remains lacking and the use of these materials for veneers remains experimental.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years

PURPOSE: This systematic review reports on the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Web of Knowledge, selected journals, clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings were searched independently by two reviewers. Academic colleagues were also contacted to identify relevant research. Inclusion criteria were human cohort studies (prospective and retrospective) and controlled trials assessing outcomes of feldspathic porcelain veneers in more than 15 patients and with at least some of the veneers in situ for 5 years. Of 4,294 articles identified, 116 studies underwent full-text screenings and 69 were further reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 11 were included in the qualitative analysis and 6 (5 cohorts) were included in meta-analyses. Estimated cumulative survival and standard error for each study were assessed and used for meta-, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses. The I2 statistic and the Cochran Q test and its associated P value were used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity, with a random-effects meta-analysis used when the P value for heterogeneity was less than .1. Galbraith, forest, and funnel plots explored heterogeneity, publication patterns, and small study biases.

RESULTS: The estimated cumulative survival for feldspathic porcelain veneers was 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.9% to 98.4%) at 5 years and ranged from 64% to 95% at 10 years across three studies. A post hoc meta-analysis indicated that the 10-year best estimate may approach 95.6% (95% CI: 93.8% to 97.5%). High levels of statistical heterogeneity were found.

CONCLUSIONS: When bonded to enamel substrate, feldspathic porcelain veneers have a very high 10-year survival rate that may approach 95%. Clinical heterogeneity is associated with differences in reported survival rates. Use of clinically relevant survival definitions and careful reporting of tooth characteristics, censorship, clustering, and precise results in future research would improve metaanalytic estimates and aid treatment decisions.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources

BACKGROUND: "Cumulative meta-analysis" describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990 s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a systematic approach to identify and summarise the findings of cumulative meta-analyses of studies of the effects of clinical interventions, published from 1992 to 2012. Searches were done of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Science Citation Index. A total of 50 eligible reports were identified, including more than 1,500 cumulative meta-analyses. A variety of themes are illustrated with specific examples. The studies showed that initially positive results became null or negative in meta-analyses as more trials were done; that early null or negative results were over-turned; that stable results (beneficial, harmful and neutral) would have been seen had a meta-analysis been done before the new trial; and that additional trials had been much too small to resolve the remaining uncertainties.

CONCLUSIONS: This large, unique collection of cumulative meta-analyses highlights how a review of the existing evidence might have helped researchers, practitioners, patients and funders make more informed decisions and choices about new trials over decades of research. This would have led to earlier uptake of effective interventions in practice, less exposure of trial participants to less effective treatments, and reduced waste resulting from unjustified research.

Meta-analysis of prostate cancer gene expression data identifies a novel discriminatory signature enriched for glycosylating enzymes

BACKGROUND: Tumorigenesis is characterised by changes in transcriptional control. Extensive transcript expression data have been acquired over the last decade and used to classify prostate cancers. Prostate cancer is, however, a heterogeneous multifocal cancer and this poses challenges in identifying robust transcript biomarkers.

METHODS: In this study, we have undertaken a meta-analysis of publicly available transcriptomic data spanning datasets and technologies from the last decade and encompassing laser capture microdissected and macrodissected sample sets.

RESULTS: We identified a 33 gene signature that can discriminate between benign tissue controls and localised prostate cancers irrespective of detection platform or dissection status. These genes were significantly overexpressed in localised prostate cancer versus benign tissue in at least three datasets within the Oncomine Compendium of Expression Array Data. In addition, they were also overexpressed in a recent exon-array dataset as well a prostate cancer RNA-seq dataset generated as part of the The Cancer Genomics Atlas (TCGA) initiative. Biologically, glycosylation was the single enriched process associated with this 33 gene signature, encompassing four glycosylating enzymes. We went on to evaluate the performance of this signature against three individual markers of prostate cancer, v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG) expression, prostate specific antigen (PSA) expression and androgen receptor (AR) expression in an additional independent dataset. Our signature had greater discriminatory power than these markers both for localised cancer and metastatic disease relative to benign tissue, or in the case of metastasis, also localised prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, robust transcript biomarkers are present within datasets assembled over many years and cohorts and our study provides both examples and a strategy for refining and comparing datasets to obtain additional markers as more data are generated.

Vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to investigate the association between routine vaccinations and the risk of childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus by systematically reviewing the published literature and performing meta-analyses where possible.

Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all studies that compared vaccination rates in children who subsequently developed type 1 diabetes mellitus and in control children. ORs and 95% CIs were obtained from published reports or derived from individual patient data and then combined using a random effects meta-analysis.

Results In total, 23 studies investigating 16 vaccinations met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of these contributed to meta-analyses which included data from between 359 and 11,828 childhood diabetes cases. Overall, there was no evidence to suggest an association between any of the childhood vaccinations investigated and type 1 diabetes mellitus. The pooled ORs ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.24, 1.40) for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination in five studies up to 1.04 (95% CI 0.94, 1.14) for the haemophilus influenza B (HiB) vaccination in 11 studies. Significant heterogeneity was present in most of the pooled analyses, but was markedly reduced when analyses were restricted to study reports with high methodology quality scores. Neither this restriction by quality nor the original authors’ adjustments for potential confounding made a substantial difference to the pooled ORs.

Conclusions/interpretation This study provides no evidence of an association between routine vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes.