Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

Survival and cardiac remodeling benefits in patients undergoing late percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) with medical therapy in patients randomized >12 h after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Glycemic control and macrovascular disease in types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Uncertainty persists concerning the effect of improved long-term glycemic control on macrovascular disease in diabetes mellitus (DM).

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of adequate allocation concealment and patient blinding with estimates of treatment benefits in osteoarthritis trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-epidemiologic study of 16 meta-analyses with 175 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. We calculated effect sizes from the differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of followup divided by the pooled SD and compared effect sizes between trials with and trials without adequate methodology. RESULTS: Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 46 trials with adequate allocation concealment compared with 112 trials with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation (difference -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.31, 0.02). Selection bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation was most pronounced in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits (P for interaction < 0.001), meta-analyses with high between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.009), and meta-analyses of complementary medicine (P = 0.019). Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 64 trials with adequate blinding of patients compared with 58 trials without (difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.39, 0.09), but differences were less consistent and disappeared after accounting for allocation concealment. Detection bias associated with a lack of adequate patient blinding was most pronounced for nonpharmacologic interventions (P for interaction < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results of osteoarthritis trials may be affected by selection and detection bias. Adequate concealment of allocation and attempts to blind patients will minimize these biases.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Management of infusion reactions in clinical trials and beyond: the US and EU perspectives

Monoclonal antibodies have expanded our cancer-fighting armamentarium in both the United States and Europe. While in general, monoclonal antibodies are well tolerated and do not have significant overlapping side effects with traditional cytotoxic agents, severe infusion reactions (IRs)--sometimes severe enough to be life threatening--have been reported. The pathophysiology of severe infusion reactions associated with monoclonal antibodies is poorly understood, but mechanisms are beginning to be elucidated. Geographic differences in the incidence of IRs have become apparent. Understanding the risk, recognizing the signs and symptoms, and being ready to promptly manage severe IRs are key for the clinician to avoid unnecessarily discontinuing these effective anticancer agents and prevent potentially tragic consequences for their patients. To date, clinical trials have incorporated monoclonal antibodies into combinations with standard cytotoxic regimens; it is expected that in time clinical trials will be testing promising new combinations utilizing multiple targeted agents, resulting in improved toxicity profiles and efficacy for cancer patients.

Three-dimensional imaging core laboratory of the endovascular aneurysm repair trials: validation of methodology

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish and validate a three-dimensional imaging protocol for the assessment of Computed Tomography (CT) scans of abdominal aortic aneurysms in UK EVAR trials patients. Quality control and repeatability of anatomical measurements is important for the validity of any core laboratory. METHODS: Three different observers performed anatomical measurements on 50 preoperative CT scans of aortic aneurysms using the Vitrea 2 three-dimensional post-imaging software in a core laboratory setting. We assessed the accuracy of intra and inter observer repeatability of measurements, the time required for collection of measurements, 3 different levels of automation and 3 different automated criteria for measurement of neck length. RESULTS: None of the automated neck length measurements demonstrated sufficient accuracy and it was necessary to perform checking of the important automated landmarks. Good intra and limited inter observer agreement were achieved with three-dimensional assessment. Complete assessment of the aneurysm and iliacs took an average (SD) of 17.2 (4.1) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic aneurysm anatomy can be assessed reliably and quickly using three-dimensional assessment but for scans of limited quality, manual checking of important landmarks remains necessary. Using a set protocol, agreement between observers is satisfactory but not as good as within observers.

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.