Prevalence of anaemia in older persons: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations will impact on healthcare provision, especially since extra years are not necessarily spent in good health. It is important to identify and understand the significance of common medical problems in older people. Anaemia may be one such problem. We report on the prevalence of anaemia in cohorts of elderly people in the general population. The presence of anaemia is associated with a worse prognosis for both morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Electronic searching and reference lists of published reports were used to identify studies that reported on prevalence of anaemia in cohorts of at least 100 individuals predominantly aged 65 years and over living in developed countries, together with criteria used to define anaemia. Studies of anaemia prevalence in specific disease groups or published before 1980 were excluded. Prevalence data for the entire cohort, for men and women separately and for different age bands were extracted. RESULTS: Forty-five studies contributed data. Thirty-four studies (n = 85,409) used WHO criteria to define anaemia. The weighted mean prevalence was 17% (3-50%) overall, and 12% (3-25%) in studies based in the community (27, n = 69,975), 47% (31-50%) in nursing homes (3, n = 1481), and 40% (40-72%) in hospital admissions (4, n = 13,953). Anaemia prevalence increased with age, was slightly higher in men than women, and was higher in black people than white. Most individuals classified as anaemic using WHO criteria were only mildly anaemic. CONCLUSION: Anaemia, as defined by WHO criteria, is common in older people living in the community and particularly common in nursing home residents and hospital admissions. Predicted demographic changes underline the need to understand more about anaemia in older people.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac in osteoarthritis: Results of a network meta-analysis of unpublished legacy studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Diclofenac is widely prescribed for the treatment of pain. Several network meta-analyses (NMA), largely of published trials have evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The present NMA extends these analyses to unpublished older (legacy) diclofenac trials. METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diclofenac with planned study duration of at least 4 weeks for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) from 'legacy' studies conducted by Novartis but not published in a peer reviewed journal or included in any previous pooled analyses. All studies reporting efficacy and/or safety of treatment with diclofenac or other active therapies or placebo were included. We used a Bayesian NMA model, and estimated relative treatment effects between pairwise treatments. Main outcomes included pain relief measured using visual analogue scale at 2, 4 and 12 weeks and patient global assessment (PGA) at 4 and 12 weeks for efficacy, all-cause withdrawals, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 19 RCTs (5030 patients) were included; 18 of which were double-blind and one single-blind. All studies were conducted before cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (COXIBs) became commercially available. Data permitted robust efficacy comparison between diclofenac and ibuprofen, but the amount of data for other comparators was limited. Diclofenac 150mg/day was more efficacious than ibuprofen 1200mg/day and had likely favourable outcomes for pain relief compared to ibuprofen 2400mg/day. Diclofenac 100mg/day had likely favourable outcomes compared to ibuprofen 1200mg/day in alleviating pain. Based on PGA, diclofenac 150mg/day was more efficacious and likely to be favourable than ibuprofen 1200mg/day and 2400mg/day, respectively. Risk of withdrawal due to all causes with diclofenac and ibuprofen were comparable. Diclofenac 150mg/day was likely to have favourable efficacy and comparable tolerability with diclofenac 100mg/day. Results comparing diclofenac and ibuprofen were similar to those from NMAs of published trials. CONCLUSIONS: Results from these unpublished 'legacy' studies were similar to those from NMAs of published trials. The favourable efficacy results of diclofenac compared to ibuprofen expand the amount of available evidence comparing these two NSAIDs. The overall benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to that of ibuprofen in OA. IMPLICATIONS: The present NMA results reassures that the older unpublished blinded trials have similar results compared to more recently published trials and also contributes to increase the transparency of clinical trials performed with diclofenac further back in the past.

Pain and analgesic response after third molar extraction and other postsurgical pain.

There is uncertainty over whether the patient group in which acute pain studies are conducted (pain model) has any influence on the estimate of analgesic efficacy. Data from four recently updated systematic reviews of aspirin 600/650 mg, paracetamol 600/650 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were used to investigate the influence of pain model. Area under the pain relief versus time curve equivalent to at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 h was used as the outcome measure. Event rates with treatment and placebo, and relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat (NNT) were used as outputs from the meta-analyses. The event rate with placebo was systematically statistically lower for dental than postsurgical pain for all four treatments. Event rates with analgesics, RB and NNT were infrequently different between the pain models. Systematic difference in the estimate of analgesic efficacy between dental and postsurgical pain models remains unproven, and, on balance, no major difference is likely.

Endoscopic ulcers as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage.

The characteristic of a biomarker that makes it a useful surrogate is the ability to identify a high risk of clinically important benefits or harms occurring in the future. A number of definitions or descriptions of surrogate definition have been put forward. Most recently the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA has put forward an evaluation scheme for biomarkers, looking at validation (assay performance), qualification (assessment of evidence), and utilisation (the context in which the surrogate is to be used). This paper examines the example of endoscopy as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage using the Institute of Medicine criteria. The article finds extensive evidence that the detection of endoscopic ulcers is a valid marker. The process of qualification documents abundant evidence showing that endoscopic ulcers and serious upper gastrointestinal damage are influenced in the same direction and much the same magnitude by a variety of risk factors and interventions. Criticisms of validation and qualification for endoscopic ulcers have been examined, and dismissed. Context is the key, and in the context of serious NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal harm, endoscopic ulcers represent a useful surrogate. Generalisability beyond this context is not considered.

What works for whom? Determining the efficacy and harm of treatments for pain.

There has been a tension between the needs of regulators and industry to demonstrate that interventions are effective and safe, and the needs of professionals to understand how well interventions will work for their patients, and patients to understand what might work for them as individuals. The custom has been to focus on statistical outcomes based on average results, but in-depth analysis based on outcomes obtained by individual patients demonstrates that few are average. Rather, a minority of patients achieve very large reductions in pain (responders), while the majority achieve little (nonresponders). Those who benefit in terms of pain also benefit in other areas, with improved sleep, fatigue, mood, function, quality of life, and ability to work. This changes how benefit and risk are seen; nonresponders should stop treatments that don't work and not, therefore, be exposed to risks, while responders have very large benefits to offset against rare but potentially serious harm. This alternative view, patient-centred and practice-orientated, has major implications for clinical practice, how and why we do clinical trials and how they are designed, how health economic evaluations are done, for decisions made by regulatory and other bodies, and for the theory and practice of evidence-based medicine.