New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures

For continuous outcomes measured using instruments with an established minimally important difference (MID), pooled estimates can be usefully reported in MID units. Approaches suggested thus far omit studies that used instruments without an established MID. We describe an approach that addresses this limitation.

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries.

BACKGROUND Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference). METHODS We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1). RESULTS Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful. INTERPRETATION None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.

Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango

Spine Tango is the first and only International Spine Registry in operation to date. So far, only surgical spinal interventions have been recorded and no comparable structured and comprehensive documentation instrument for conservative treatments of spinal disorders is available. This study reports on the development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders by using the Delphi consensus method. It was conducted with a group of international experts in the field. We also assessed the usability of this new assessment tool with a prospective feasibility study on 97 outpatients and inpatients with low back or neck pain undergoing conservative treatment. The new 'Spine Tango conservative' questionnaire proved useful and suitable for the documentation of pathologies, conservative treatments and outcomes of patients with low back or neck problems. A follow-up questionnaire seemed less important in the predominantly outpatient setting. In the feasibility study, between 43 and 63% of patients reached the minimal clinically important difference in pain relief and Core Outcome Measures Index at 3 months after therapy; 87% of patients with back pain and 85% with neck pain were satisfied with the received treatment. With 'Spine Tango conservative' a first step has been taken to develop and implement a complementary system for documentation and evaluation of non-surgical spinal interventions and outcomes within the framework of the International Spine Registry. It proved useful and feasible in a first pilot study, but it will take the experience of many more cases and therapists to develop a version similarly mature as the surgical instruments of Spine Tango.

Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at -0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was -0.4 cm (95% credible interval -0.7 to -0.1 cm) for glucosamine, -0.3 cm (-0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and -0.5 cm (-0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

Evaluative comparison of physician-based vs. patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar fusion

Posterior lumbar fusion is a frequently performed procedure in spinal surgery. High percentages of good and excellent results are indicated by physicians. On the other hand patient-based outcomes are reported. Little is known about the correlations of these two assessment types. We aimed at their comparison. The analysis included 1013 patients with degenerative spinal disease or spondylolisthesis from an international spine registry, treated with posterior lumbar fusion. All patients were pre/postop assessed by physician-based McNab criteria (‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’). Of these patients, 210 (mean age 61 years; 57% females) were in addition assessed by patient-based Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The remaining 803 patients (mean age 59 years; 56% females) were assessed by patient-based Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI), including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain as well as verbal self-rating (‘helped a lot’, ‘helped’, ‘helped only little’, ‘didn’t help’, ‘made things worse’). McNab criteria were compared to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI (12.8), in VAS back (1.2) and leg pain (1.6). We investigated the correlations between McNab criteria and these patient-based outcomes. In the ‘excellent’ group as rated by physicians, the proposed MCID was reached in 83% of patients for ODI, in 69% for VAS back and in 83% for VAS leg pain. All patients said the treatment had ‘helped’ or ‘helped a lot’. In the ‘good’ group 56% (ODI), 66% (back pain) and 86% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 96% of patients perceived the treatment as positive. In the ‘fair’ group 37% (ODI), 55% (back pain) and 63% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 49% had positive treatment considerations. The ‘poor’ group revealed 30% (ODI), 35% (back pain) and 44% (leg pain) of patients with reached MCID. Only 15% rated the treatment as positive. The Spearman correlation coefficients between McNab criteria on the one hand and ODI, back and leg pain as well as patients’ verbal self-rating on the other hand were 0.57, 0.37, 0.36 and 0.46 respectively. The comparison of physician and patient-based outcomes showed the highest correlations between McNab criteria and ODI, somewhat weaker correlations with patients’ self-rating and the weakest correlations with back and leg pain. Based on these findings, physicians’ evaluation of patient outcomes can be considered a valuable part of patient assessment, corresponding very well with patients’ perceptions of success or failure of spinal surgery.

Epoetin and Darbepoetin for Managing Anemia in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness Update

Objectives: To update the 2006 systematic review of the comparative benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) strategies and non-ESA strategies to manage anemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation for malignancy (excluding myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia), including the impact of alternative thresholds for initiating treatment and optimal duration of therapy. Data sources: Literature searches were updated in electronic databases (n=3), conference proceedings (n=3), and Food and Drug Administration transcripts. Multiple sources (n=13) were searched for potential gray literature. A primary source for current survival evidence was a recently published individual patient data meta-analysis. In that meta-analysis, patient data were obtained from investigators for studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm. Because those data constitute the most currently available data for this update, as well as the source for on-study (active treatment) mortality data, we limited inclusion in the current report to studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm to avoid potential differential endpoint ascertainment in smaller studies. Review methods: Title and abstract screening was performed by one or two (to resolve uncertainty) reviewers; potentially included publications were reviewed in full text. Two or three (to resolve disagreements) reviewers assessed trial quality. Results were independently verified and pooled for outcomes of interest. The balance of benefits and harms was examined in a decision model. Results: We evaluated evidence from 5 trials directly comparing darbepoetin with epoetin, 41 trials comparing epoetin with control, and 8 trials comparing darbepoetin with control; 5 trials evaluated early versus late (delay until Hb ≤9 to 11 g/dL) treatment. Trials varied according to duration, tumor types, cancer therapy, trial quality, iron supplementation, baseline hemoglobin, ESA dosing frequency (and therefore amount per dose), and dose escalation. ESAs decreased the risk of transfusion (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.64; I2 = 51%; 38 trials) without evidence of meaningful difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. Thromboembolic event rates were higher in ESA-treated patients (pooled RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.74; I2 = 0%; 37 trials) without difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. In 14 trials reporting the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Fatigue subscale, the most common patient-reported outcome, scores decreased by −0.6 in control arms (95% CI, −6.4 to 5.2; I2 = 0%) and increased by 2.1 in ESA arms (95% CI, −3.9 to 8.1; I2 = 0%). There were fewer thromboembolic and on-study mortality adverse events when ESA treatment was delayed until baseline Hb was less than 10 g/dL, in keeping with current treatment practice, but the difference in effect from early treatment was not significant, and the evidence was limited and insufficient for conclusions. No evidence informed optimal duration of therapy. Mortality was increased during the on-study period (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 37 trials). There was one additional death for every 59 treated patients when the control arm on-study mortality was 10 percent and one additional death for every 588 treated patients when the control-arm on-study mortality was 1 percent. A cohort decision model yielded a consistent result—greater loss of life-years when control arm on-study mortality was higher. There was no discernible increase in mortality with ESA use over the longest available followup (pooled HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.10; I2 = 38%; 44 trials), but many trials did not include an overall survival endpoint and potential time-dependent confounding was not considered. Conclusions: Results of this update were consistent with the 2006 review. ESAs reduced the need for transfusions and increased the risk of thromboembolism. FACT-Fatigue scores were better with ESA use but the magnitude was less than the minimal clinically important difference. An increase in mortality accompanied the use of ESAs. An important unanswered question is whether dosing practices and overall ESA exposure might influence harms.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Back related outcome assessment instruments

A literature review of the most widely used condition specific, self administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain had been undertaken. General and historic aspects, reliability, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference, external validity, floor and ceiling effects, and available languages were analysed. These criteria, however, are only part of the consideration. Of similar importance are the content, wording of questions and answers in each of the six questionnaires and an analysis of the different score results. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.

Gender differences in patients referred for atrial fibrillation management to a tertiary center

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is less frequently performed in women than in men. Although the prevalence of AF is slightly higher in men, this does not fully account for the lower number of AF ablations performed in women. This study sought to examine the effect of gender on referral for AF and subsequent AF management. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to our tertiary arrhythmia outpatient clinic for AF management were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Of 264 patients referred, only 27% were women. Women were older than men (63 +/- 9 vs 58 +/- 11 years, P = 0.002), more often had paroxysmal AF (78% vs 63% in men, P = 0.022), and women more frequently complained about palpitations (71% vs 49%, P = 0.002). In addition, they had more often experienced amiodarone side effects than men (56% vs 36%, P = 0.046). In this referred population, there was no difference in the proportion of women and men undergoing AF ablation immediately following the initial evaluation (21% vs 25%, P = ns), at any time during the follow-up (38% vs 44%, P = ns), and there was no difference in the proportion of patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation in both sexes (6% of women vs 3% of men, P = ns). CONCLUSIONS: There is an important difference in the proportion of men and women referred for management of AF in a specialized outpatient arrhythmia clinic, with women being referred three times less often than men. However, there is no gender-related difference in the subsequent treatment decisions. These findings emphasize the importance of focusing on management of symptomatic AF in women.

[New insights into diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus: recommendations of the Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes]

Physiology and current knowledge about gestational diabetes which led to the adoption of new diagnostic criterias and blood glucose target levels during pregnancy by the Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes are reviewed. The 6th International Workshop Conference on Gestational Diabetes mellitus in Pasedena (2008) defined new diagnostic criteria based on the results of the HAPO-Trial. These criteria were during the ADA congress in New Orleans in 2009 presented. According to the new criteria there is no need for screening, but all pregnant women have to be tested with a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy. The new diagnostic values are very similar to the ones previously adopted by the ADA with the exception that only one out of three values has to be elevated in order to make the diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Due to this important difference it is very likely that gestational diabetes will be diagnosed more frequently in the future. The diagnostic criteria are: Fasting plasma glucose > or = 5.1 mmol/l, 1-hour value > or = 10.0 mmol/l or 2-hour value > or = 8.5 mmol/l. Based on current knowledge and randomized trials it is much more difficult to define glucose target levels during pregnancy. This difficulty has led to many different recommendations issued by diabetes societies. The Swiss Society of Endocrinology and Diabetes follows the arguments of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) that self-blood glucose monitoring itself lacks precision and that there are very few randomized trials. Therefore, the target levels have to be easy to remember and might be slightly different in mmol/l or mg/dl. The Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes adopts the tentative target values of the IDF with fasting plasma glucose values < 5.3 mM and 1- and 2-hour postprandial (after the end of the meal) values of < 8.0 and 7.0 mmol/l, respectively. The last part of these recommendations deals with the therapeutic options during pregnancy (nutrition, physical exercise and pharmaceutical treatment). If despite lifestyle changes the target values are not met, approximately 25 % of patients have to be treated pharmaceutically. Insulin therapy is still the preferred treatment option, but metformin (and as an exception glibenclamide) can be used, if there are major hurdles for the initiation of insulin therapy.

Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms in cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analyses of published and unpublished data.

Background:Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions; however, they increase the risk of thromboembolic events and mortality. The impact of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) is controversial and led to different recommendations of medical societies and authorities in the USA and Europe. We aimed to critically evaluate and quantify the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients.Methods:We included data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of ESAs on QoL in cancer patients. Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching electronic data bases and other sources up to January 2011. To reduce publication and outcome reporting biases, we included unreported results from clinical study reports. We conducted meta-analyses on fatigue- and anaemia-related symptoms measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anaemia (FACT-An) subscales (primary outcomes) or other validated instruments.Results:We identified 58 eligible RCTs. Clinical study reports were available for 27% (4 out of 15) of the investigator-initiated trials and 95% (41 out of 43) of the industry-initiated trials. We excluded 21 RTCs as we could not use their QoL data for meta-analyses, either because of incomplete reporting (17 RCTs) or because of premature closure of the trial (4 RCTs). We included 37 RCTs with 10 581 patients; 21 RCTs were placebo controlled. Chemotherapy was given in 27 of the 37 RCTs. The median baseline haemoglobin (Hb) level was 10.1 g dl(-1); in 8 studies ESAs were stopped at Hb levels below 13 g dl(-1) and in 27 above 13 g dl(-1). For FACT-F, the mean difference (MD) was 2.41 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.39-3.43; P<0.0001; 23 studies, n=6108) in all cancer patients and 2.81 (95% CI 1.73-3.90; P<0.0001; 19 RCTs, n=4697) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was below the threshold (⩾3) for a clinically important difference (CID). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents had a positive effect on anaemia-related symptoms (MD 4.09; 95% CI 2.37-5.80; P=0.001; 14 studies, n=2765) in all cancer patients and 4.50 (95% CI 2.55-6.45; P<0.0001; 11 RCTs, n=2436) in patients receiving chemotherapy, which was above the threshold (⩾4) for a CID. Of note, this effect persisted when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy. There was some evidence that the MDs for FACT-F were above the threshold for a CID in RCTs including cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with Hb levels below 12 g dl(-1) at baseline and in RCTs stopping ESAs at Hb levels above 13 g dl(-1). However, these findings for FACT-F were not confirmed when we restricted the analysis to placebo-controlled RCTs in patients receiving chemotherapy.Conclusions:In cancer patients, particularly those receiving chemotherapy, we found that ESAs provide a small but clinically important improvement in anaemia-related symptoms (FACT-An). For fatigue-related symptoms (FACT-F), the overall effect did not reach the threshold for a CID.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 17 April 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.171 www.bjcancer.com.

Periacetabular osteotomy restores the typically excessive range of motion in dysplastic hips with a spherical head

BACKGROUND Residual acetabular dysplasia is seen in combination with femoral pathomorphologies including an aspherical femoral head and valgus neck-shaft angle with high antetorsion. It is unclear how these femoral pathomorphologies affect range of motion (ROM) and impingement zones after periacetabular osteotomy. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Does periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) restore the typically excessive ROM in dysplastic hips compared with normal hips; (2) how do impingement locations differ in dysplastic hips before and after PAO compared with normal hips; (3) does a concomitant cam-type morphology adversely affect internal rotation; and (4) does a concomitant varus-derotation intertrochanteric osteotomy (IO) affect external rotation? METHODS Between January 1999 and March 2002, we performed 200 PAOs for dysplasia; of those, 27 hips (14%) met prespecified study inclusion criteria, including availability of a pre- and postoperative CT scan that included the hip and the distal femur. In general, we obtained those scans to evaluate the pre- and postoperative acetabular and femoral morphology, the degree of acetabular reorientation, and healing of the osteotomies. Three-dimensional surface models based on CT scans of 27 hips before and after PAO and 19 normal hips were created. Normal hips were obtained from a population of CT-based computer-assisted THAs using the contralateral hip after exclusion of symptomatic hips or hips with abnormal radiographic anatomy. Using validated and computerized methods, we then determined ROM (flexion/extension, internal- [IR]/external rotation [ER], adduction/abduction) and two motion patterns including the anterior (IR in flexion) and posterior (ER in extension) impingement tests. The computed impingement locations were assigned to anatomical locations of the pelvis and the femur. ROM was calculated separately for hips with (n = 13) and without (n = 14) a cam-type morphology and PAOs with (n = 9) and without (n = 18) a concomitant IO. A post hoc power analysis based on the primary research question with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta error of 0.20 revealed a minimal detectable difference of 4.6° of flexion. RESULTS After PAO, flexion, IR, and adduction/abduction did not differ from the nondysplastic control hips with the numbers available (p ranging from 0.061 to 0.867). Extension was decreased (19° ± 15°; range, -18° to 30° versus 28° ± 3°; range, 19°-30°; p = 0.017) and ER in 0° flexion was increased (25° ± 18°; range, -10° to 41° versus 38° ± 7°; range, 17°-41°; p = 0.002). Dysplastic hips had a higher prevalence of extraarticular impingement at the anteroinferior iliac spine compared with normal hips (48% [13 of 27 hips] versus 5% [one of 19 hips], p = 0.002). A PAO increased the prevalence of impingement for the femoral head from 30% (eight of 27 hips) preoperatively to 59% (16 of 27 hips) postoperatively (p = 0.027). IR in flexion was decreased in hips with a cam-type deformity compared with those with a spherical femoral head (p values from 0.002 to 0.047 for 95°-120° of flexion). A concomitant IO led to a normalization of ER in extension (eg, 37° ± 7° [range, 21°-41°] of ER in 0° of flexion in hips with concomitant IO compared with 38° ± 7° [range, 17°-41°] in nondysplastic control hips; p = 0.777). CONCLUSIONS Using computer simulation of hip ROM, we could show that the PAO has the potential to restore the typically excessive ROM in dysplastic hips. However, a PAO can increase the prevalence of secondary intraarticular impingement of the aspherical femoral head and extraarticular impingement of the anteroinferior iliac spines in flexion and internal rotation. A cam-type morphology can result in anterior impingement with restriction of IR. Additionally, a valgus hip with high antetorsion can result in posterior impingement with decreased ER in extension, which can be normalized with a varus derotation IO of the femur. However, indication of an additional IO needs to be weighed against its inherent morbidity and possible complications. The results are based on a limited number of hips with a pre- and postoperative CT scan after PAO. Future prospective studies are needed to verify the current results based on computer simulation and to test their clinical importance.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Minimal residual disease in cancer therapy - Small things make all the difference

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a major hurdle in the eradication of malignant tumors. Despite the high sensitivity of various cancers to treatment, some residual cancer cells persist and lead to tumor recurrence and treatment failure. Obvious reasons for residual disease include mechanisms of secondary therapy resistance, such as the presence of mutant cells that are insensitive to the drugs, or the presence of cells that become drug resistant due to activation of survival pathways. In addition to such unambiguous resistance modalities, several patients with relapsing tumors do not show refractory disease and respond again when the initial therapy is repeated. These cases cannot be explained by the selection of mutant tumor cells, and the precise mechanisms underlying this clinical drug resistance are ill-defined. In the current review, we put special emphasis on cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms that may explain mechanisms of MRD that are independent of secondary therapy resistance. In particular, we show that studying genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), which highly resemble the disease in humans, provides a complementary approach to understand MRD. In these animal models, specific mechanisms of secondary resistance can be excluded by targeted genetic modifications. This allows a clear distinction between the selection of cells with stable secondary resistance and mechanisms that result in the survival of residual cells but do not provoke secondary drug resistance. Mechanisms that may explain the latter feature include special biochemical defense properties of cancer stem cells, metabolic peculiarities such as the dependence on autophagy, drug-tolerant persisting cells, intratumoral heterogeneity, secreted factors from the microenvironment, tumor vascularization patterns and immunosurveillance-related factors. We propose in the current review that a common feature of these various mechanisms is cancer cell dormancy. Therefore, dormant cancer cells appear to be an important target in the attempt to eradicate residual cancer cells, and eventually cure patients who repeatedly respond to anticancer therapy but lack complete tumor eradication.