A framework to characterise the reproducibility of meta-analysis results with its application to direct oral anticoagulants in the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism.

The number of meta-analyses of aggregate data has dramatically increased due to the facility of obtaining data from publications and the development of free, easy-to-use, and specialised statistical software. Even when meta-analyses include the same studies, their results may vary owing to different methodological choices. Assessment of the replication of meta-analysis provides an example of the variation of effect 'naturally' observed between multiple research projects. Reproducibility of results has mostly been reported using graphical descriptive representations. A quantitative analysis of such results would enable (i) breakdown of the total observed variability with quantification of the variability generated by the replication process and (ii) identification of which variables account for this variability, such as methodological quality or the statistical analysis procedures used. These variables might explain systematic mean differences between results and dispersion of the results. To quantitatively characterise the reproducibility of meta-analysis results, a bivariate linear mixed-effects model was developed to simulate both mean results and their corresponding uncertainty. Results were assigned to several replication groups, those assessing the same studies, outcomes, treatment indication and comparisons classified in the same replication group. A nested random effect structure was used to break down the total variability within each replication group and between these groups to enable calculation of an intragroup correlation coefficient and quantification of reproducibility. Determinants of variability were investigated by modelling both mean and variance parameters using covariates. The proposed model was applied to the example of meta-analyses evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality?

OBJECTIVES: To perform an overview of the overlap of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing direct oral anticoagulants and characterize these reviews in terms of bias and methodological quality (PROSPERO: CRD42022316273). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A PubMed-indexed search was performed from inception to January 31, 2022 to identify SRs evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated for an acute venous thromboembolism. The risk of bias of these SRs was assessed according to the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews tool. Redundancy was defined as overlap in terms of the type of population considered, the interventions compared, and the studies included. RESULTS: A total of 144 SRs were evaluated, of which 26 (18.1%) were classified as original, 87 (60.4%) as conceptual replications, and 31 (21.5%) as excessive replications. The risk of bias was high in 19 (73.1%) of the original SRs, 65 (74.7%) of the conceptual replications, and 21 (67.7%) of the excessive replications. Compared to the original SRs, the overall methodological quality was not improved in either conceptual or excessive replications. CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs was classified as replications; a fifth constituted excessive replications. The replications showed no improvement in overall methodological quality compared to the original SRs.

Adjusted versus fixed doses of LMWHs in trauma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients with traumatic injuries, despite thromboprophylaxis. To decrease both thrombotic and bleeding risks, some authors suggest adjusting the thromboprophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), in particular according to body weight at treatment initiation or to changes in anti-factor Xa level during treatment. Our objective was to estimate in trauma patients the efficacy and safety of such adjustments, compared with the conventional strategy of fixed-dose LMWH thromboprophylaxis. SOURCE: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to identify and assess randomised control trials and observational studies with prospective enrolment that included trauma patients and compared adjustment of LMWH thromboprophylaxis versus no adjustment. The primary and secondary endpoints were VTE and bleeding, respectively. The Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No significant reduction in the risk of VTE was observed with adjusted doses of LMWH compared with fixed doses when considering only randomised control trials (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.09 to 11.6]) or all trials (OR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.42]). Similarly, there was no significant difference in bleeding risk (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.10). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that, to date, there is no evidence to justify adjusting LMWH doses, in agreement with the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Pharmacokinetics of enoxaparin in COVID-19 critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: In intensive-care unit (ICU) patients, pathophysiological changes may affect the pharmacokinetics of enoxaparin and result in underdosing. OBJECTIVES: To develop a pharmacokinetic model of enoxaparin to predict the time-exposure profiles of various thromboprophylactic regimens in COVID-19 ICU-patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in ICUs of two French hospitals. Anti-Xa activities from consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with enoxaparin for the prevention or the treatment of venous thrombosis were used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model using non-linear mixed effects techniques. Monte Carlo simulations were then performed to predict enoxaparin exposure at steady-state after three days of administration. RESULTS: A total of 391 anti-Xa samples were measured in 95 patients. A one-compartment model with first-order kinetics best fitted the data. The covariate analysis showed that enoxaparin clearance (typical value 1.1 L.h-1) was related to renal function estimated by the CKD-EPI formula and volume of distribution (typical value 17.9 L) to actual body weight. Simulation of anti-Xa activities with enoxaparin 40 mg qd indicated that 64% of the patients had peak levels within the range 0.2 to 0.5 IU.mL-1 and 75% had 12-hour levels above 0.1 IU.mL-1. Administration of a total daily dose of at least 60 mg per day improved the probability of target attainment. CONCLUSION: In ICU COVID-19 patients, exposure to enoxaparin is reduced due to an increase in the volume of distribution and clearance. Consequently, enoxaparin 40 mg qd is suboptimal to attain thromboprophylactic anti-Xa levels.

Exposure-Response Relationship of Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether high-dose regimens of tranexamic acid in cardiac surgery (total dose, 80 to 100 mg/kg) confer a clinical advantage over low-dose regimens (total dose, approximately 20 mg/kg), particularly as tranexamic acid-associated seizure may be dose-related. The authors' aim was to characterize the exposure-response relationship of this drug. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of intravenous tranexamic acid in adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Observational studies were added for seizure assessment. Tranexamic acid concentrations were predicted in each arm of each study using a population pharmacokinetic model. The exposure-response relationship was evaluated by performing a model-based meta-analysis using nonlinear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: Sixty-four randomized controlled trials and 18 observational studies (49,817 patients) were included. Seventy-three different regimens of tranexamic acid were identified, with the total dose administered ranging from 5.5 mg/kg to 20 g. The maximum effect of tranexamic acid for postoperative blood loss reduction was 40% (95% credible interval, 34 to 47%), and the EC50 was 5.6 mg/l (95% credible interval, 0.7 to 11 mg/l). Exposure values with low-dose regimens approached the 80% effective concentration, whereas with high-dose regimens, they exceeded the 90% effective concentration. The predicted cumulative blood loss up to 48 h postsurgery differed by 58 ml between the two regimens, and the absolute difference in erythrocyte transfusion rate was 2%. Compared to no tranexamic acid, low-dose and high-dose regimens increased the risk of seizure by 1.2-fold and 2-fold, respectively. However, the absolute risk increase was only clinically meaningful in the context of prolonged open-chamber surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, low-dose tranexamic acid seems to be an appropriate regimen for reducing bleeding outcomes. This meta-analysis has to be interpreted with caution because the results are observational and dependent on the lack of bias of the predicted tranexamic acid exposures and the quality of the included studies.

Cervical epidural anesthesia is associated with increased cancer-free survival in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer surgery: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Regional anesthesia preserves perioperative immune competence and may reduce the risk of recurrence and metastasis after cancer surgery. Cervical epidural anesthesia provides adequate analgesia for head and neck cancer surgery, but its impact on cancer recurrence is unknown. METHODS: This study was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing larynx or hypopharynx cancer surgery between January 1984 and December 2008. One hundred eleven patients had general anesthesia combined with intraoperative and postoperative cervical epidural; 160 had general anesthesia alone with postoperative morphine. From this cohort, matched pairs were selected using a propensity score to balance potential confounders of receiving epidural anesthesia. The primary end point was the length of cancer-free survival after surgery until September 2009. RESULTS: Propensity-based matching produced 65 pairs. Matching was effective in achieving balance between groups for each of the preoperative variables collected. Combined epidural and general anesthesia (68% 5-year cancer-free survival; 95% confidence interval [CI], 57%-82%) was associated with significantly increased cancer-free survival compared with general anesthesia alone (37% 5-year cancer-free survival; 95% CI, 25%-54%) with a corresponding adjusted hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.25-0.96; P = 0.04). Patients in the epidural group had an increased overall survival compared with the non-epidural group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The association between cervical epidural anesthesia and increased cancer-free survival found in this retrospective study should be an important hypothesis to further investigate in head and neck cancer surgery.