Upload
chaim-maull
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Cell-Free Hemoglobin-Based Blood Substitutes and Risk of Myocardial Infarction and DeathNatason et al., JAMA, Prepublished online April 28, 2008 at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299.19.jrv80007
Journal ClubYulia Lin, Transfusion Medicine ResidentUniversity of TorontoMay 16, 2008
2
How to critically appraise a meta-analysis?
Guyatt G, Rennie D (ed). User’s guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago, IL: AMA Press. 2002. Chapter 1E: Summarizing the evidence.
3
Definitions
Overview Summary of the medical literature that
attempts to address a focused clinical question
Systematic review Using methods designed to reduce the
likelihood of bias Meta-analysis
Review that uses quantitative methods to summarize the results
4
Steps to a Meta-analysis
Question Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome
Literature search Identify all relevant studies
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Select and critically appraise
Data abstraction Collect relevant information
Analysis
Guyatt G, Rennie D. User’s Guide to the Medical Literature (2002) ch 1E
5
How to critically appraise a meta-analysis?
1. Are the results of the study valid?
2. What are the results?
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
6
Are the results of the study valid?
Did the overview address a focused clinical question?
Was the search for relevant studies detailed and exhaustive?
Were the primary studies of high methodologic quality?
Were assessments of studies reproducible?
Question
Literature search
Selection & appraisal
Data abstraction
7
What are the results?
Were the results similar from study to study?
What are the overall results of the review?
How precise were the results?
Analysis
8
Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
Are the results generalizable and can they be applied to my patients?
Were all clinically important outcomes considered?
Are the benefits worth the harms and cost?
Externalvalidity
9
Cell-Free Hemoglobin-Based Blood Substitutes and Risk of Myocardial Infarction and DeathNatason et al., JAMA, Prepublished online April 28, 2008 at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299.19.jrv80007
10
Hemoglobin-based blood substitutes (HBBS)
Ideally Universally available Eliminate need for refrigeration Long shelf-life Decreased risk of iatrogenic infection
But the challenge = free hemoglobin Scavenges nitric oxide --> vascular thrombosis
11
Possible solutions?
Chemically alter Hb to create larger, more stable HBBS molecule Cross-link Polymerize Pegylate
12Copyright restrictions may apply.
13
Question
The association between HBBSs and the risk of myocardial infarction and death
Additional purpose Examine regulatory process that permitted
repeated trials with theses agents despite safety concerns
14
Literature Search
Search Strategy PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Human RCT in English 1980 to March 25, 2008 “blood substitutes” and “hemoglobin”
Internet FDA advisory committee meeting Press releases from companies
15
Study Criteria
Inclusion RCT Outcome variable: Death or MI
Exclusion Did not involve a HBBS All patients were healthy volunteers or
younger than 19 years Results included in a subsequent report
16Copyright restrictions may apply.
17
Methods
Standard data collection form Outcomes: mortality and MI Descriptive data Intention-to-treat analysis used when
reported Missing data (1 treatment, 4 control)
analyzed both as survivors and nonsurvivors Independent review by 2 authors with a
3rd author resolving discrepancies
18
Statistics
“We assessed the homogeneity using Breslow-Day test and an associated I2 statistic”
To pool or not to pool? Tests of heterogeneity determine whether
the degree of variability in treatment effects between studies is greater than that expected by chance
I2 measures the extent of variation• 0% indicates no observed heterogeneity• Heterogeneity increases as I2 increases
19
To pool or not to pool? Forest plots
Pool if all point estimates are on the same side of the line or if confidence intervals overlap
20
Statistics
“Risks estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with 95% CI”
How to pool the results? Results typically weighted based on study
size (occasionally can be weighted based on quality of study)
21
Statistics
“A fixed effects model was required because of the null values for the estimates of between-study variance”
Models for pooling data in meta-analysis Fixed effects model
Assumes there is a single true value underlying all study results such that if all studies were infinitely large, they would yield identical estimates of the effect
Error comes only from within study variation
22
Models for pooling in meta-analysis
Random effects model Assumes that studies are a random sample
of a population of studies where each study estimates a different underlying true effect and the distribution of these effects is assumed normal around a mean value
Error comes from both within study variation and between study heterogeneity
Random effects model usually has a wider confidence interval
If little heterogeneity, compared to within-study variance, approximates fixed effects model
23
Results
16 trials of 5 HBBSs met inclusion criteria Type: 4 double-blind, 7 single-blind, 4 open-
label, 1 uninformative Patients: 5 trauma, 10 surgical, 1 stroke Outcomes: 12 used death, 10 used MI Median time from completion of trial to
publication 4 years (1 to 6 years)
Trials described in Table 2
24Copyright restrictions may apply.
NNH 62
25Copyright restrictions may apply.
NNH 50
26Copyright restrictions may apply.
27
Subgroup analyses
Results consistent regardless of Patient population Control: non-blood vs. blood product Product removed Type of product
• Low vs. High tetramer content • Low vs. High P50 content
Unpublished vs. published
28Copyright restrictions may apply.
Cumulative Mortality and MI
By 2000, 11 studies completed Mortality RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.99-1.63 MI RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.49-5.15
29
The regulatory process
Sponsors are required by law to report their results to the FDA after studies are completed (whether or not published)
Data are not made public unless product is approved or an advisory committee is convened
Article outlines pitfalls of this system including that 5 trials are ongoing and 1 is being planned
30
Are the results of the study valid?
Did the overview address a focused clinical question? PIO Intervention and outcome Population was varied and one might expect that this might
lead to variations in the absolute risk of mortality/MI but not necessarily the relative risk
Control varied but no difference in sub-group analysis
Was the search for relevant studies detailed and exhaustive? Yes, included unpublished studies and attempts to contact the
companies for more complete data Assumed? Hand searching the reference lists of the articles or
consulting experts in the area No change when unpublished studies excluded
31
Are the results of the study valid?
Were the primary studies of high methodologic quality? Restricted to RCT but all RCTs included Did not comment on validity of primary studies
Were assessments of studies reproducible? Yes 2 investigators reviewed the studies with a 3rd author
resolving any discrepancies
32
What are the results?
Were the results similar from study to study? Yes, both by I2 statistic and forest plot
What are the overall results of the review and how precise were the results? HBBS associated with increased death/MI Death: RR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.61 MI: RR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.67-4.40
33
Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
Are the results generalizable and can they be applied to my patients? Yes – covers a variety of conditions and settings
Were all clinically important outcomes considered? The study considered the adverse effects of therapy It did not report on the treatment effect though the
endpoints in Table 2 listed avoidance of allogeneic transfusion and in one case, disability score
Are the benefits worth the harms and cost? Weighing the risk of increased mortality and MI
against the risks of avoidance of allogeneic transfusion
No
34
Conclusion
Agree with authors’ conclusions “In the analysis of available data from clinical
trials, HBBSs was associated with a significantly increased risk of death and MI”
Questions?