Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is widely used to promote fusion in spinal surgery, but its safety has been questioned. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rhBMP-2. DATA SOURCES: Individual-participant data obtained from the sponsor or investigators and data extracted from study publications identified by systematic bibliographic searches through June 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of rhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) in spinal fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease and related conditions and observational studies in similar populations for investigation of adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual-participant data from 11 eligible of 17 provided trials sponsored by Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota) (n = 1302) and 1 of 2 other eligible trials (n = 106) were included. Additional aggregate adverse event data were extracted from 35 published observational studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Primary outcomes were pain (assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] or Short Form-36), fusion, and adverse events. At 24 months, ODI scores were 3.5% lower (better) with rhBMP-2 than with ICBG (95% CI, 0.5% to 6.5%) and radiographic fusion was 12% higher (CI, 2% to 23%). At or shortly after surgery, pain was more common with rhBMP-2 (odds ratio, 1.78 [CI, 1.06 to 2.95]). Cancer was more common after rhBMP-2 (relative risk, 1.98 [CI, 0.86 to 4.54]), but the small number of events precluded definite conclusions. LIMITATION: The observational studies were diverse and at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: At 24 months, rhBMP-2 increases fusion rates, reduces pain by a clinically insignificant amount, and increases early postsurgical pain compared with ICBG. Evidence of increased cancer incidence is inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale University Open Data Access Project.

Development of Provisional Acupuncture Guidelines for Pelvic Pain in Endometriosis Using an e-Delphi Consensus Process.

Introduction: Growing evidence suggests that acupuncture can improve pelvic pain in women with endometriosis. The treatments used in research vary considerably. It remains unclear which treatment could be recommended for clinical practice. This research project aimed at clarifying how acupuncture could be used when treating this condition. Methods: This research comprised two phases: a systematized literature review to extract acupuncture treatment details from published research, and an e-Delphi study to gain knowledge about details as used by expert acupuncturists. Review: Four databases were searched using predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted based on the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) criteria. e-Delphi: Purposeful sampling from colleagues and international experts. An open first round gathered qualitative data, analyzed with the Framework method. In rounds 2 and 3, experts rated statements to build group consensus, defined as a rating of ≥5 on a 7-point Likert scale by ≥70% of the experts. The strength of agreement was graded using the median score and interquartile range. Results from the literature review and the e-Delphi were compared using the STRICTA items. Results: The literature review (n = 29 unique studies) found a wide range of treatment details with little agreement. The e-Delphi of international experts (n = 20) resulted in agreement on 94 statements (such as key factors for effectiveness); disagreement on a further 29 (such as acupressure); and absence of consensus on 55 statements (such as the number of needle insertions). A comparison of the review and e-Delphi results found little agreement. Conclusions: Details of acupuncture treatment for endometriosis-related pelvic pain were presented. In the absence of acupuncture guidelines for this condition, the researchers of this e-Delphi recommend using the treatment details on which experts agreed as guidance for good practice. The effectiveness of these guidelines should be evaluated in future research. Study registration: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS00022215, June 30, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether published results of industry funded trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion match underlying trial data by comparing three different data sources: individual participant data, internal industry reports, and publicly available journal publications and conference abstracts. DATA COLLECTION AND SYNTHESIS: The manufacturer of rhBMP-2 products (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) provided complete individual participant data and internal reports for all its studies of rhMBP-2 in spinal fusion. We identified publications and conference abstracts through comprehensive literature searches. We compared outcomes provided in the individual participant data against outcomes reported in publications. For effectiveness outcomes, we compared meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials based on each of the three data sources. For adverse events, meta-analysis of the published aggregate data was not possible and we compared the number and type of adverse events reported between data sources. RESULTS: 32 publications reported outcomes from 11 of the 17 existing manufacturer sponsored studies. For individual randomised controlled trials, 56% (9/16) to 88% (15/17) of effectiveness outcomes known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were almost identical for pain outcomes and similar for fusion across the three data sources. A minority of adverse event data known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Several journal articles reported only "serious," "related," or "unanticipated" adverse events, without defining these terms. Others reported a small proportion of the collected adverse event categories. Around 23% (533/2302) of the total adverse events collected in published randomised controlled trials have been reported in the literature, with randomised controlled trials evaluating the licensed preparation (Infuse) reporting around 11% (122/1108) of collected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature only partially represents the total data known to have been collected on the effects of rhBMP-2. This did not lead to substantially different results for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. In contrast, reporting of adverse event data in trial publications was inadequate and inconsistent to the extent that any systematic review based solely on the publicly available data would not be able to properly evaluate the safety of rhBMP-2. Analysis of individual participant data enabled the most complete, detailed, and in-depth analysis and was not more resource intensive than extracting, collating, and analysing aggregate data from multiple trial publications and conference abstracts. Confidential internal reports presented considerably more adverse event data than publications, and in the absence of individual participant data access to these reports would support more accurate and reliable investigation, with less time and effort than relying on incomplete published data.