Gait function assessed using 3D gait analysis in patients with cervical spinal myelopathy before and after surgical decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of cervical spinal cord dysfunction in adults and the result of chronic degenerative changes of the cervical spine. The compression of the spinal cord can lead to ischemia, inflammation, and neuronal apoptosis with a consequent impairment of the neurological function. Gait impairment is one of the most frequent signs of DCM. PURPOSE: To investigate the changes in spatio-temporal gait parameters assessed using 3D gait analysis in patients affected by DCM compared with healthy controls and the effect of surgical decompression on these parameters. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The meta-analysis included 267 patients with DCM and 276 healthy controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spatio-temporal parameters of gait were assessed. The primary outcome was gait speed; the secondary outcomes were cadence, stride length, step width, stride time, single-limb support time, and double-limb support time. METHODS: Studies reporting spatial and/or temporal gait parameters measured using 3D gait analysis in patients with DCM were included. Data sources were Embase, Medline, and the Core Collection of Web of Science. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate the influence of surgical decompression in patients measured before and after surgery as well as to compare gait parameters of patients with DCM with controls. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reporting on 267 patients with DCM and 276 healthy controls met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies compared patients with DCM with healthy controls, three studies compared gait in patients with DCM before and after surgical decompression, and three studies performed both comparisons. Compared with healthy controls, patients with DCM had slower gait speed (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD), -1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.86; -1.13]; p<.001), lower cadence (SMD, -0.78; 95%CI [-1.00; -0.56]; p<.001), shorter stride length (SMD, -1.27; 95%CI [-1.53, -1.01]; p<.001), greater step width (SMD, 0.98; 95%CI [0.42, 1.54]; p=.003), longer stride time (SMD, 0.77; 95%CI [0.37, 1.16]; p=.009), single-limb support phase (SMD, -0.68; 95%CI [-1.06; -0.29]; p=.011), and double-limb support phase (SMD 0.84; 95%CI [0.35, 1.32]; p=.012). After surgical decompression, patients with DCM showed an improvement in gait speed (SMD, 0.57 (95%CI [0.29; 0.85]; p=.003) and no significant differences in other spatio-temporal parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DCM have clearly different spatio-temporal gait parameters than healthy controls. Gait speed is the only spatio-temporal gait parameter that improves significantly after surgical decompression suggesting that gait speed may be an important clinical outcome parameter in patients with DCM.

Subclinical giant cell arteritis in new onset polymyalgia rheumatica A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and predictors of subclinical giant cell arteritis (GCA) in patients with newly diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection were systematically searched (date of last search July 14, 2021) for any published information on any consecutively recruited cohort reporting the prevalence of GCA in steroid-naïve patients with PMR without cranial or ischemic symptoms. We combined prevalences across populations in a random-effect meta-analysis. Potential predictors of subclinical GCA were identified by mixed-effect logistic regression using individual patient data (IPD) from cohorts screened with PET/(CT). RESULTS: We included 13 cohorts with 566 patients from studies published between 1965 to 2020. Subclinical GCA was diagnosed by temporal artery biopsy in three studies, ultrasound in three studies, and PET/(CT) in seven studies. The pooled prevalence of subclinical GCA across all studies was 23% (95% CI 14%-36%, I2=84%) for any screening method and 29% in the studies using PET/(CT) (95% CI 13%-53%, I2=85%) (n=266 patients). For seven cohorts we obtained IPD for 243 patients screened with PET/(CT). Inflammatory back pain (OR 2.73, 1.32-5.64), absence of lower limb pain (OR 2.35, 1.05-5.26), female sex (OR 2.31, 1.17-4.58), temperature >37° (OR 1.83, 0.90-3.71), weight loss (OR 1.83, 0.96-3.51), thrombocyte count (OR 1.51, 1.05-2.18), and haemoglobin level (OR 0.80, 0.64-1.00) were most strongly associated with subclinical GCA in the univariable analysis but not C-reactive protein (OR 1.00, 1.00-1.01) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR 1.01, 1.00-1.02). A prediction model calculated from these variables had an area under the curve of 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.75). CONCLUSION: More than a quarter of patients with PMR may have subclinical GCA. The prediction model from the most extensive IPD set has only modest diagnostic accuracy. Hence, a paradigm shift in the assessment of PMR patients in favour of implementing imaging studies should be discussed.

Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs.

Importance: In many health systems, access to off-label drug use is controlled through reimbursement restrictions by health insurers, especially for expensive cancer drugs. Objective: To determine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials is associated with reimbursement decisions for requested off-label use of anticancer drugs in the Swiss health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used reimbursement requests from routinely collected health records of 5809 patients with drug treatment for cancer between January 2015 and July 2018 in 3 major cancer centers, covering cancer care of approximately 5% of the Swiss population, to identify off-label drug use. For each off-label use indication with 3 or more requests, randomized clinical trial evidence on treatment benefits was systematically identified for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2020. Exposures: Available randomized clinical trial evidence on benefits for OS or PFS for requested off-label use indications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between evidence for treatment benefit (expressed as improved OS or PFS) and reimbursement in multivariable regression models. Results: Among 3046 patients with cancer, 695 off-label use reimbursement requests in 303 different indications were made for 598 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-73] years; 420 [60%] men). Off-label use was intended as first-line treatment in 311 requests (45%). Reimbursement was accepted in 446 requests (64%). For 71 indications, including 431 requests for 376 patients, there were 3 or more requests. Of these, 246 requests (57%) had no supporting evidence for OS or PFS benefit. Reimbursement was granted in 162 of 246 requests without supporting evidence (66%). Of 117 requests supported by OS benefit, 79 (67%) were reimbursed, and of 68 requests supported by PFS benefit alone, 54 (79%) were reimbursed. Evidence of OS benefit from randomized clinical trials was not associated with a higher chance of reimbursement (odds ratio, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.45-1.27). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in a health care system enabling access to off-label use, it was frequently intended as a first-line treatment in cancer care. Availability of randomized clinical trial evidence showing survival benefit was not associated with reimbursement decisions for off-label anticancer drug treatment in Switzerland. A transparent process with criteria considering clinical evidence is needed for evidence-based reimbursement decisions to ensure fair access to cancer treatments.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Postoperative Urinary Tract Infections in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis for postoperative urinary tract infections following transurethral resection of bladder tumors is controversial. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the potential effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis on postoperative urinary tract infections and asymptomatic bacteriuria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in Embase®, Medline® and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials assessing the effect of any form of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with transurethral resection of bladder tumors on postoperative urinary tract infections or asymptomatic bacteriuria were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were conducted. As a potential basis for a scoping review, we exploratorily searched Medline for risk factors for urinary tract infections after transurethral resection of bladder tumors. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019131733). RESULTS: Of 986 screened publications, 7 studies with 1,725 participants were included; the reported effect sizes varied considerably. We found no significant effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis on urinary tract infections: the pooled odds ratio of the random effects model was 1.55 (95% CI 0.73-3.31). The random effects meta-analysis examining the effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis on asymptomatic bacteriuria showed an OR of 0.43 (0.18-1.04). Risk of bias was moderate. Our exploratory search identified 3 studies reporting age, preoperative pelvic radiation, preoperative hospital stay, duration of operation, tumor size, preoperative asymptomatic bacteriuria and pyuria as risk factors for urinary tract infections following transurethral resection of bladder tumors. CONCLUSIONS: We observed insufficient evidence supporting routine antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing transurethral resection of bladder tumors for the prevention of postoperative urinary tract infections; our findings may inform harmonization of international guidelines.

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016.

Importance: Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted. Objective: To describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately. Results: Between 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

Characteristics and interpretation of subgroup analyses based on tumour characteristics in randomised trials testing target-specific anticancer drugs: design of a systematic survey.

BACKGROUND: Target-specific anticancer drugs are under rapid development. Little is known, however, about the risk of administering target-specific drugs to patients who have tumours with molecular alterations or other characteristics that can make the drug ineffective or even harmful. An increasing number of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) investigating target-specific anticancer drugs include subgroup analyses based on tumour characteristics. Such subgroup analyses have the potential to be more credible and influential than subgroup analyses based on traditional factors such as sex or tumour stage. In addition, they may more frequently lead to qualitative subgroup effects, that is, show benefit in one but harm in another subgroup of patients (eg, if the tumour characteristic makes the drug ineffective or even enhance tumour growth). If so, subgroup analyses based on tumour characteristics would be highly relevant for patient safety. The aim of this study is to systematically assess the frequency and characteristics of subgroup analyses based on tumour characteristics, the frequency of qualitative subgroup effects, their credibility, and the interpretations that investigators and guidelines developers report. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic survey of 433 RCTs testing the effect of target-specific anticancer drugs. Teams of methodologically trained investigators and oncologists will identify eligible studies, extract relevant data and assess the credibility of putative subgroup effects using a recently developed formal instrument. We will systematically assess how trial investigators interpret apparent subgroup effects based on tumour characteristics and the extent to which they influence subsequent practice guidelines. Our results will provide empirical data characterising an increasingly used type of subgroup analysis in cancer trials and its potential impact on precision medicine to predict benefit or harm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this study. We will disseminate the findings in a peer-reviewed and open-access journal publication.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral resection of bladder tumours: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis for postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) after transurethral resection of bladder tumours is controversial. This potentially leads to the overuse of antibiotic prophylaxis and rising antimicrobial resistance rates. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the impact of different antimicrobial prophylaxis schemes versus placebo on the prevention of postoperative UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria. METHODS: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized (e.g. cohort, case-control) studies examining any form of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with transurethral resection of bladder tumours. Literature searches will be conducted in several electronic databases (from inception onwards), including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Grey literature will be identified through searching conference abstracts. The primary outcome will be postoperative urinary tract infections. The secondary outcome will be asymptomatic bacteriuria. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools (e.g. Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If feasible, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis of outcome data. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. study design, publication year, the setting of the study, and antibiotics regimen). We will also search, identify, and discuss potential risk factors for urinary tract infections following transurethral resection of bladder tumours. This may serve as basis for a scoping review. DISCUSSION: In times of rising antimicrobial resistance rates, sound evidence on the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis is essential for implementation into guideline recommendations and for decision-making in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019131733.

Contrasting evidence to reimbursement reality for off-label use (OLU) of drug treatments in cancer care: rationale and design of the CEIT-OLU project.

Background: Off-label use (OLU) of a drug reflects a perceived unmet medical need, which is common in oncology. Cancer drugs are often highly expensive and their reimbursement is a challenge for many healthcare systems. OLU is frequently regulated by reimbursement restrictions. For evidence-based healthcare, treatment ought to be reimbursed if there is sufficient clinical evidence for treatment benefit independently of patient factors not related to the treatment indication. However, little is known about the reality of OLU reimbursement and its association with the underlying clinical evidence. Here, we aim to investigate the relationship of reimbursement decisions with the underlying clinical evidence. Methods/ design: We will extract patient characteristics and details on treatment and reimbursement of cancer drugs from over 3000 patients treated in three Swiss hospitals. We will systematically search for clinical trial evidence on benefits associated with OLU in the most common indications. We will describe the prevalence of OLU in Switzerland and its reimbursement in cancer care, and use multivariable logistic regression techniques to investigate the association of approval/rejection of a reimbursement requests to the evidence on treatment effects and to further factors, including type of drug, molecular predictive markers and the health insurer. Discussion: Our study will provide a systematic overview and assessment of OLU and its reimbursement reality in Switzerland. We may provide a better understanding of the access to cancer care that is regulated by health insurers and we hope to identify factors that determine the level of evidence-based cancer care in a highly diverse western healthcare system.

Single-dose versus 3-day cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in transurethral resection or greenlight laser vaporisation of the prostate: study protocol for a multicentre randomised placebo controlled non-inferiority trial (CITrUS trial).

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and Greenlight laser vaporisation (GL) of the prostate are frequently performed urological procedures. For TURP, a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) is recommended to reduce postoperative urinary tract infections. So far, no international recommendations for AP have been established for GL. In a survey-based study in Switzerland, Germany and Austria, urologists reported routinely extending AP primarily for 3 days after both interventions. We therefore aim to determine whether single-dose AP with cotrimoxazole is non-inferior to 3-day AP with cotrimoxazole in patients undergoing TURP or GL of the prostate. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We plan to assess the non-inferiority of single-dose AP compared to 3-day AP. The primary outcome is the occurrence of clinically diagnosed symptomatic urinary tract infections which are treated with antimicrobial agents within 30 days after randomisation. The vast majority of collected outcomes will be assessed from routinely collected data. The sample size was estimated to be able to show the non-inferiority of single-dose AP compared to 3-day AP with at least 80% power (1 - ß = 0.8) at a significance level of α = 5%, applying a 1:1 randomisation scheme. The non-inferiority margin was determined in order to preserve 70% of the effect of usual care on the primary outcome. For an assumed event rate of 9% in both treatment arms, this resulted in a non-inferiority margin of 4.4% (i.e. 13.4% to 9%). To prove non-inferiority, a total of 1574 patients should be recruited, in order to have 1416 evaluable patients. The study is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. DISCUSSION: For AP in TURP and GL, there is a large gap between usual clinical practice and evidence-based guidelines. If single-dose AP proves non-inferior to prolonged AP, our study findings may help to reduce the duration of AP in daily routine-potentially reducing the risk of emerging resistance and complications related to AP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03633643 . Registered 16 August 2018.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Innovative Treatments for Cancer (CEIT-Cancer) project: Rationale and design of the database and the collection of evidence available at approval of novel drugs.

BACKGROUND: The available evidence on the benefits and harms of novel drugs and therapeutic biologics at the time of approval is reported in publicly available documents provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We aimed to create a comprehensive database providing the relevant information required to systematically analyze and assess this early evidence in meta-epidemiological research. METHODS: We designed a modular and flexible database of systematically collected data. We identified all novel cancer drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2016, recorded regulatory characteristics, acquired the corresponding FDA approval documents, identified all clinical trials reported therein, and extracted trial design characteristics and treatment effects. Herein, we describe the rationale and design of the data collection process, particularly the organization of the data capture, the identification and eligibility assessment of clinical trials, and the data extraction activities. DISCUSSION: We established a comprehensive database on the comparative effects of drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA over a time period of 17 years for the treatment of cancer (solid tumors and hematological malignancies). The database provides information on the clinical trial evidence available at the time of approval of novel cancer treatments. The modular nature and structure of the database and the data collection processes allow updates, expansions, and adaption for a continuous meta-epidemiological analysis of novel drugs. The database allows us to systematically evaluate benefits and harms of novel drugs and therapeutic biologics. It provides a useful basis for meta-epidemiological research on the comparative effects of innovative cancer treatments and continuous evaluations of regulatory developments.

Comparative effectiveness of tenofovir in HIV-infected treatment-experienced patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for HIV infection are frequently changed. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials (RCTs) on the benefits and harms of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based regimens in ART-experienced patients. METHODS: We included RCTs in HIV-infected adults comparing switching to a TDF-containing regimen with maintaining or switching to another regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, SCI, and the WHO Global Health Library. We assessed bias with the Cochrane tool and synthesized data using random-effects meta-analyses and Peto's approach. For further analyses, we added data from a previous systematic review in treatment-naïve patients. RESULTS: 17 RCTs with 2210 patients were included. All but one study had a high risk of bias. There was no significant association of switching to TDF-based regimens with mortality, fractures, CD4-cell count, body fat, virological failure, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol. TDF-based regimens decreased total cholesterol (mean difference -12.05 mg/dL; 95% CI -20.76 to -3.34), trigylcerides (-14.33 mg/dL; -23.73 to -4.93), and bone mineral density (BMD; hip: -2.46%; -3.9 to -1.03; lumbar spine -1.52%; -2.69 to -0.34). Effects on estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) were inconsistent and depended on the measurement. Adding 22 RCTs from 8297 treatment-naïve patients gave consistent results with then significant reductions of LDL (-7.57 mg/dL; -10.37 to -4.78), HDL (-2.38 mg/dL; -3.83 to -0.93), and eGFR (-3.49 ml/min; -5.56 to -1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to TDF-based regimens is associated with reductions of BMD and lipid levels and possibly lowered kidney function. The evidence is limited by the high risk of bias.