Assessing heterogeneity of effects on blood pressure in a meta-analysis of pharmacist interventions trials

Background: Recent reviews of randomized control trials have shown that pharmacist interventions improve cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk factors in outpatients. Various interventions were evaluated in different settings, and a substantial heterogeneity was observed in the effect estimates. To better express uncertainties in the effect estimates, prediction intervals (PI) have been proposed but are, however, rarely reported. Objective: Pooling data from two systematic reviews, we estimated the effect of pharmacist interventions on systolic blood pressure (BP), computed PI, and evaluated potential causes of heterogeneity. Methods: Data were pooled from systematic reviews assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on CVD risk factors in patients with or without diabetes, respectively. Effects were estimated using random effect models. Results: Systolic BP was the outcome in 31 trials including 12 373 patients. Pharmacist interventions included patient educational interventions, patient-reminder systems, measurement of BP, medication management and feedback to physician, or educational intervention to health care professionals. Pharmacist interventions were associated with a large reduction in systolic BP (-7.5 mmHg; 95% CI: -9.0 to -5.9). There was a substantial heterogeneity (I2: 66%). The 95% PI ranged from -13.9 to -1.0 mmHg. The effect tended to be larger if the intervention was conducted in a community pharmacy and if the pharmacist intervened at least monthly. Conclusion: On average, the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP was substantial. However, the wide PI suggests that the effect differed between interventions, with some having modest effects and others very large effects on BP. Part of the heterogeneity could be due to differences in the setting and in the frequency of the interventions.

A mixed approach for proving non-inferiority in clinical trials with binary endpoints

When a new treatment is compared to an established one in a randomized clinical trial, it is standard practice to statistically test for non-inferiority rather than for superiority. When the endpoint is binary, one usually compares two treatments using either an odds-ratio or a difference of proportions. In this paper, we propose a mixed approach which uses both concepts. One first defines the non-inferiority margin using an odds-ratio and one ultimately proves non-inferiority statistically using a difference of proportions. The mixed approach is shown to be more powerful than the conventional odds-ratio approach when the efficacy of the established treatment is known (with good precision) and high (e.g. with more than 56% of success). The gain of power achieved may lead in turn to a substantial reduction in the sample size needed to prove non-inferiority. The mixed approach can be generalized to ordinal endpoints.

Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Control of blood pressure (BP) remains a major challenge in primary care. Innovative interventions to improve BP control are therefore needed. By updating and combining data from 2 previous systematic reviews, we assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP and identify potential determinants of heterogeneity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients with or without diabetes were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. Weighted mean differences in BP were estimated using random effect models. Prediction intervals (PI) were computed to better express uncertainties in the effect estimates. Thirty-nine RCTs were included with 14 224 patients. Pharmacist interventions mainly included patient education, feedback to physician, and medication management. Compared with usual care, pharmacist interventions showed greater reduction in systolic BP (-7.6 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.0 to -6.3; I(2)=67%) and diastolic BP (-3.9 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.1 to -2.8; I(2)=83%). The 95% PI ranged from -13.9 to -1.4 mm Hg for systolic BP and from -9.9 to +2.0 mm Hg for diastolic BP. The effect tended to be larger if the intervention was led by the pharmacist and was done at least monthly. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist interventions - alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals - improved BP management. Nevertheless, pharmacist interventions had differential effects on BP, from very large to modest or no effect; and determinants of heterogeneity could not be identified. Determining the most efficient, cost-effective, and least time-consuming intervention should be addressed with further research.

Defining responses to therapy and study outcomes in clinical trials of invasive fungal diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus criteria.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.

Impact of pharmacist care in the management of cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists may improve the clinical management of major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. A systematic review was conducted to determine the impact of pharmacist care on the management of CVD risk factors among outpatients. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that involved pharmacist care interventions among outpatients with CVD risk factors. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and classified pharmacists' interventions. Mean changes in blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and proportion of smokers were estimated using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty randomized controlled trials (11 765 patients) were identified. Pharmacist interventions exclusively conducted by a pharmacist or implemented in collaboration with physicians or nurses included patient educational interventions, patient-reminder systems, measurement of CVD risk factors, medication management and feedback to physician, or educational intervention to health care professionals. Pharmacist care was associated with significant reductions in systolic/diastolic blood pressure (19 studies [10 479 patients]; -8.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval {CI}, -10.2 to -5.9]/-3.8 mm Hg [95% CI,-5.3 to -2.3]); total cholesterol (9 studies [1121 patients]; -17.4 mg/L [95% CI,-25.5 to -9.2]), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (7 studies [924 patients]; -13.4 mg/L [95% CI,-23.0 to -3.8]), and a reduction in the risk of smoking (2 studies [196 patients]; relative risk, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.89]). While most studies tended to favor pharmacist care compared with usual care, a substantial heterogeneity was observed. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-directed care or in collaboration with physicians or nurses improve the management of major CVD risk factors in outpatients.

New validated prognostic models and prognostic calculators in patients with low-grade gliomas diagnosed by central pathology review: a pooled analysis of EORTC/RTOG/NCCTG phase III clinical trials.

Background In a previous study, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) reported a scoring system to predict survival of patients with low-grade gliomas (LGGs). A major issue in the diagnosis of brain tumors is the lack of agreement among pathologists. New models in patients with LGGs diagnosed by central pathology review are needed. Methods Data from 339 EORTC patients with LGGs diagnosed by central pathology review were used to develop new prognostic models for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Data from 450 patients with centrally diagnosed LGGs recruited into 2 large studies conducted by North American cooperative groups were used to validate the models. Results Both PFS and OS were negatively influenced by the presence of baseline neurological deficits, a shorter time since first symptoms (<30 wk), an astrocytic tumor type, and tumors larger than 5 cm in diameter. Early irradiation improved PFS but not OS. Three risk groups have been identified (low, intermediate, and high) and validated. Conclusions We have developed new prognostic models in a more homogeneous LGG population diagnosed by central pathology review. This population better fits with modern practice, where patients are enrolled in clinical trials based on central or panel pathology review. We could validate the models in a large, external, and independent dataset. The models can divide LGG patients into 3 risk groups and provide reliable individual survival predictions. Inclusion of other clinical and molecular factors might still improve models' predictions.