Corrigendum to "Evaluation and Management of Skeletal Health in Celiac Disease: Position Statement".

[This corrects the article on p. 819 in vol. 26.].

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The effect of glucagon-like peptide-1(GLP-1) receptor agonists on heart failure remains uncertain. We therefore conducted a systematic review to assess the possible impact of GLP-1 agonists on heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that addressed the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure. Two paired reviewers screened reports, collected data, and assessed the risk of bias. We pooled data from RCTs and observational studies separately, and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 25 studies that were eligible for our review; 21 RCTs (n = 18,270) and 4 observational studies (n = 111,029). Low quality evidence from 20 RCTs suggested, if anything, a lower incidence of heart failure between GLP-1 agonists versus control (17/7,441 vs. 19/4,317; odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.22; risk difference (RD) 19 fewer, 95 % CI 34 fewer to 11 more per 1000 over 5 years). Three cohort studies comparing GLP-1 agonists to alternative agents provided very low quality evidence that GLP-1 agonists do not increase the incidence of heart failure. One RCT provided moderate quality evidence that GLP-1 agonists were not associated with hospitalization for heart failure (lixisenatide vs placebo: 122/3,034 vs. 127/3,034; adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.23; RD 4 fewer, 95 % CI 25 fewer to 23 more per 1000 over 5 years) and a case-control study provided very low quality evidence also suggesting no association (GLP-1 agonists vs. other anti-hyperglycemic drugs: 1118 cases and 17,626 controls, adjusted OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.32 to 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that GLP-1 agonists do not increase the risk of heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68,775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1,777,358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15,701 v 33/12,591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18,554 v 552/18,474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use. CONCLUSIONS: The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use.

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis. RESULTS: 60 studies (n=353,639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33,350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320,289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13). CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk.

Approach to diagnosing celiac disease in patients with low bone mineral density or fragility fractures: multidisciplinary task force report.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with an update on the diagnosis of celiac disease (CD) and to make recommendations on the indications to screen for CD in patients presenting with low bone mineral density (BMD) or fragility fractures. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A multidisciplinary task force developed clinically relevant questions related to the diagnosis of CD as the basis for a literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (January 2000 to January 2009) using the key words celiac disease, osteoporosis, osteopenia, low bone mass, and fracture. The existing literature consists of level I and II studies. MAIN MESSAGE: The estimated prevalence of asymptomatic CD is 2% to 3% in individuals with low BMD. Routine screening for CD is not justified in patients with low BMD. However, targeted screening for CD is recommended for patients who have T-scores of -1.0 or less at the spine or hip, or a history of fragility fractures in association with any CD-related symptoms or conditions; family history of CD; or low urinary calcium levels, vitamin D insufficiency, and raised parathyroid hormone levels despite adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D. Celiac disease testing should be performed while the subject is consuming a gluten-containing diet; initial screening should be performed with human recombinant immunoglobulin (Ig) A tissue transglutaminase or other IgA tissue transglutaminase assays, in association with IgA endomysial antibody immunofluorescence. Duodenal biopsy is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of CD. Human leukocyte antigen typing might assist in confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of CD in cases where serology and histology are discordant. Definitive diagnosis is based on clinical, serologic, and histologic features, combined with a positive response to a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support routine screening for CD in all patients with low BMD. A targeted case-finding approach is appropriate for patients who are at higher risk of CD.

Evaluation and management of skeletal health in celiac disease: position statement.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evaluation and management of skeletal health in patients with celiac disease (CD), and to make recommendations on screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of low bone mineral density (BMD) in CD patients. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed clinically relevant questions for review. An electronic search of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1996 to 2010. All original studies, reviews and guidelines, both pediatric and adult, were included. A document summarizing the results of the review and proposed recommendations was prepared and underwent multiple revisions until consensus was reached. RESULTS: At diagnosis, approximately one-third of adult CD patients have osteoporosis, one-third have osteopenia and one-third have normal BMD. Children with CD have low bone mass at diagnosis. Adult and pediatric CD patients are at increased risk of fractures. DISCUSSION: For adults, serum calcium, albumin, 25(OH) vitamin D3, parathyroid hormone and 24 h urine calcium testing should be performed at diagnosis; patients with 'classic' CD and those at risk for osteoporosis should undergo a dual x-ray absorptiometry scan. An abnormal baseline dual x-ray absorptiometry scan should be repeated one to two years after initiation of a gluten-free diet (GFD). For children, BMD should be assessed one year after diagnosis if GFD adherence is not strict. A GFD is the most important treatment for bone loss. Supplemental antiresorptives may be justified in those who remain at high fracture risk (eg, postmenopausal women, older men) after implementation of a GFD. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the screening of all CD patients for low BMD at diagnosis. Follow-up BMD assessment should be performed one to two years after initiation of a GFD.

Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw in Ontario: a survey of oral and maxillofacial surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in association with use of bisphosphonate (BP) has been described primarily in cancer patients receiving high-dose intravenous BP. The frequency of the condition in patients with osteoporosis appears to be low. We evaluated the frequency of BP-associated ONJ in Ontario in the cancer population and in those receiving BP for osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease. METHODS: A survey developed by representatives of the Ontario Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons was mailed to Ontario oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) in December 2006, asking oral surgeons to provide information on cases of ONJ seen in the previous 3 calendar years (2004 to 2006). OMFS were subsequently contacted by telephone if they had not responded or if they had reported cases of ONJ. The frequency of ONJ in association with BP use was estimated from the number of patients with filled prescriptions for BP in Ontario between 2004 and 2006. The cumulative incidence of ONJ was calculated separately for patients using intravenous (IV) BP for cancer treatment and for patients using oral or IV BP for osteoporosis or other metabolic bone disease. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2006, 32 ONJ cases were identified. Nineteen patients received IV BP for cancer treatment and 13 patients received oral or IV BP for osteoporosis or metabolic bone disease. Over a 3-year period the cumulative incidence of BP-associated ONJ was 0.442% of cancer patient observations (442 per 100,000) and 0.001% of osteoporosis or other metabolic bone disease observations (1.04 per 100,000). The relative risk of low dose IV/oral BP-associated ONJ was 0.002 (95% CI 0.001, 0.005) compared to high-dose IV BP. Other risk factors for ONJ were present in all cases in whom detailed assessment was available. The median duration of exposure to BP was 42 months (range 36 to 120 mo) and 42 months (range 11 to 79 mo) in osteoporosis patients and cancer patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over a 3-year period, the cumulative incidence for BP-associated ONJ was 0.442% of cancer patient observations (442 per 100,000) and 0.001% of osteoporosis or metabolic bone disease observations (1.04 per 100,000). This study provides an approximate frequency of BP-associated ONJ in Canada. These data need to be quantified prospectively with accurate assessment of coexisting risk factors.

Association between framing of the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Experts recommend formulating a structured research question to guide the research design. However, the basis for this recommendation has not been formally evaluated. The aim of this study was to examine if a structured research question using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time-frame) format is associated with a better reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We evaluated 89 RCTs reports published in three endocrinology journals in 2005 and 2006, the quality of reporting of which was assessed in a previous study. We examined whether the reports stated each of the five elements of a structured research question: population, intervention, comparator, outcome and time-frame. A PICOT score was created with a possible score between 0 and 5. Outcomes were: 1) a 14-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials; and 2) a 3-point key score (KS), based on allocation concealment, blinding and use of intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted multivariable regression analyses using generalized estimating equations to determine if a higher PICOT score or the use of a structured research question were independently associated with a better reporting quality. Journal of publication, funding source and sample size were identified as factors associated with OQS in our previous report on this dataset, and therefore included in the model. RESULTS: A higher PICOT score was independently associated with OQS (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.021, 95% CI: 1.012 to 1.029) and KS (IRR = 1.142, 95% CI: 1.079 to 1.210). A structured research question was present in 33.7% of the reports and it was associated with a better OQS (IRR = 1.095, 95% CI 1.059-1.132) and KS (IRR = 1.530, 95% CI 1.311-1.786). CONCLUSIONS: Better framing of the research question using the PICOT format is independently associated with better overall reporting quality - although the effect is small - and better reporting of key methodologies.

A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how.

Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature.

CONTEXT: The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality. DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006. PARTICIPANTS: We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. MAIN OUTCOMES: There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations.