Growth hormone receptor polymorphism and growth hormone therapy response in children: a bayesian meta-analysis

Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) therapy is used in the long-term treatment of children with growth disorders, but there is considerable treatment response variability. The exon 3-deleted growth hormone receptor polymorphism (GHR(d3)) may account for some of this variability. The authors performed a systematic review (to April 2011), including investigator-only data, to quantify the effects of the GHR(fl-d3) and GHR(d3-d3) genotypes on rhGH therapy response and used a recently established Bayesian inheritance model-free approach to meta-analyze the data. The primary outcome was the 1-year change-in-height standard-deviation score for the 2 genotypes. Eighteen data sets from 12 studies (1,527 children) were included. After several prior assumptions were tested, the most appropriate inheritance model was codominant (posterior probability = 0.93). Compared with noncarriers, carriers had median differences in 1-year change-in-height standard-deviation score of 0.09 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.01, 0.17) for GHR(fl-d3) and of 0.14 (95% CrI: 0.02, 0.26) for GHR(d3-d3). However, the between-study standard deviation of 0.18 (95% CrI: 0.10, 0.33) was considerable. The authors tested by meta-regression for potential modifiers and found no substantial influence. They conclude that 1) the GHR(d3) polymorphism inheritance is codominant, contrasting with previous reports; 2) GHR(d3) genotypes account for modest increases in rhGH effects in children; and 3) considerable unexplained variability in responsiveness remains.

Prediction of hypertensive crisis based on average, variability and approximate entropy of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Approximate entropy (ApEn) of blood pressure (BP) can be easily measured based on software analysing 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), but the clinical value of this measure is unknown. In a prospective study we investigated whether ApEn of BP predicts, in addition to average and variability of BP, the risk of hypertensive crisis. In 57 patients with known hypertension we measured ApEn, average and variability of systolic and diastolic BP based on 24-h ABPM. Eight of these fifty-seven patients developed hypertensive crisis during follow-up (mean follow-up duration 726 days). In bivariate regression analysis, ApEn of systolic BP (P<0.01), average of systolic BP (P=0.02) and average of diastolic BP (P=0.03) were significant predictors of hypertensive crisis. The incidence rate ratio of hypertensive crisis was 14.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8, 631.5; P<0.01) for high ApEn of systolic BP as compared to low values. In multivariable regression analysis, ApEn of systolic (P=0.01) and average of diastolic BP (P<0.01) were independent predictors of hypertensive crisis. A combination of these two measures had a positive predictive value of 75%, and a negative predictive value of 91%, respectively. ApEn, combined with other measures of 24-h ABPM, is a potentially powerful predictor of hypertensive crisis. If confirmed in independent samples, these findings have major clinical implications since measures predicting the risk of hypertensive crisis define patients requiring intensive follow-up and intensified therapy.

Bayesian statistics in oncology: a guide for the clinical investigator

The rise of evidence-based medicine as well as important progress in statistical methods and computational power have led to a second birth of the >200-year-old Bayesian framework. The use of Bayesian techniques, in particular in the design and interpretation of clinical trials, offers several substantial advantages over the classical statistical approach. First, in contrast to classical statistics, Bayesian analysis allows a direct statement regarding the probability that a treatment was beneficial. Second, Bayesian statistics allow the researcher to incorporate any prior information in the analysis of the experimental results. Third, Bayesian methods can efficiently handle complex statistical models, which are suited for advanced clinical trial designs. Finally, Bayesian statistics encourage a thorough consideration and presentation of the assumptions underlying an analysis, which enables the reader to fully appraise the authors' conclusions. Both Bayesian and classical statistics have their respective strengths and limitations and should be viewed as being complementary to each other; we do not attempt to make a head-to-head comparison, as this is beyond the scope of the present review. Rather, the objective of the present article is to provide a nonmathematical, reader-friendly overview of the current practice of Bayesian statistics coupled with numerous intuitive examples from the field of oncology. It is hoped that this educational review will be a useful resource to the oncologist and result in a better understanding of the scope, strengths, and limitations of the Bayesian approach.