Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses. METHODS: We retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 × 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.

Menopausal hormone therapy: why we should no longer be afraid of the breast cancer risk.

The threat that women may develop breast cancer is the major reason why both physicians and women are afraid to use menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The fear pertains to estrogen-progestin replacement therapy (EPRT) as estrogen-alone replacement therapy has no, or even a reduced, breast cancer risk. We reviewed the way breast cancer risk with EPRT was reported in some major publications since 2002 and tried to put the use-risk association in context. We hope this will make it easier for the physician and the menopausal woman to understand the risk involved and allow more confident and more informed decision-making regarding MHT use. We conclude that there are five interrelated reasons why physicians and women should no longer be afraid of the breast cancer risk with EPRT. We submit that breast cancer related to EPRT use is rare because the risk is very low; the reported increase in breast cancer risk with EPRT is not relevant to current practice; modifiable lifestyle factors, not EPRT, are the real risks for breast cancer; breast cancer-specific mortality is reduced in women who develop breast cancer while on EPRT; and avoiding MHT use when indicated puts a woman in harm's way.

Model-based meta-analysis of the time to first acute urinary retention or benign prostatic hyperplasia-related surgery in patients with moderate or severe symptoms.

AIMS: Combination therapy of 5α-reductase inhibitor and α-blocker is a guideline-endorsed therapeutic approach for patients with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms or benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) who are at risk of disease progression. We aimed to disentangle the contribution of clinical and demographic baseline characteristics affecting the risk of acute urinary retention or BPH-related surgery (AUR/S) from the effect of treatment with drugs showing symptomatic and disease-modifying properties. METHODS: A time-to-event model was developed using pooled data from patients (n = 10 238) enrolled into six clinical studies receiving placebo, tamsulosin, dutasteride or tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy. A parametric hazard function was used to describe the time to first AUR/S. Covariate model building included the assessment of relevant clinical and demographic factors on baseline hazard. Predictive performance was evaluated by graphical and statistical methods. RESULTS: An exponential hazard model best described the time to first AUR/S in this group of patients. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and maximum urine flow were identified as covariates with hazard ratio estimates of 1.04, 1.08, 1.01 and 0.91, respectively. Dutasteride monotherapy and tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the baseline hazard (56.8% and 66.4%, respectively). By contrast, the effect of tamsulosin did not differ from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed the implications of disease-modifying properties of dutasteride and tamsulosin-dutasteride combination therapy for the risk of AUR/S. It also elucidated the contribution of different baseline characteristics to the risk of these events. The use of tamsulosin monotherapy (symptomatic treatment) has no impact on individual long-term risk.

Drugs to Prevent Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Effect of Baseline Risk on the Number Needed to Treat.

Infants born very preterm have a variable baseline risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Using the example of evidence-based drug therapies to prevent BPD, we designed a visual aid that displays the "number needed to treat" with CIs for caffeine, vitamin A, and hydrocortisone over a range of baseline risks.

Multilevel model with random effects for clustered survival data with multiple failure outcomes.

We present a multilevel frailty model for handling serial dependence and simultaneous heterogeneity in survival data with a multilevel structure attributed to clustering of subjects and the presence of multiple failure outcomes. One commonly observes such data, for example, in multi-institutional, randomized placebo-controlled trials in which patients suffer repeated episodes (eg, recurrent migraines) of the disease outcome being measured. The model extends the proportional hazards model by incorporating a random covariate and unobservable random institution effect to respectively account for treatment-by-institution interaction and institutional variation in the baseline risk. Moreover, a random effect term with correlation structure driven by a first-order autoregressive process is attached to the model to facilitate estimation of between patient heterogeneity and serial dependence. By means of the generalized linear mixed model methodology, the random effects distribution is assumed normal and the residual maximum likelihood and the maximum likelihood methods are extended for estimation of model parameters. Simulation studies are carried out to evaluate the performance of the residual maximum likelihood and the maximum likelihood estimators and to assess the impact of misspecifying random effects distribution on the proposed inference. We demonstrate the practical feasibility of the modeling methodology by analyzing real data from a double-blind randomized multi-institutional clinical trial, designed to examine the effect of rhDNase on the occurrence of respiratory exacerbations among patients with cystic fibrosis.

Point and interval estimation of baseline risk and treatment effect based on logistic model for observational studies.

In observational studies with dichotomous outcome of a population, researchers usually report treatment effect alone, although both baseline risk and treatment effect are needed to evaluate the significance of the treatment effect to the population. In this article, we study point and interval estimates including confidence region of baseline risk and treatment effect based on logistic model, where baseline risk is the risk of outcome of the population under control treatment while treatment effect is measured by the risk difference between outcomes of the population under active versus control treatments. Using approximate normal distribution of the maximum-likelihood (ML) estimate of the model parameters, we obtain an approximate joint distribution of the ML estimate of the baseline risk and the treatment effect. Using the approximate joint distribution, we obtain point estimate and confidence region of the baseline risk and the treatment effect as well as point estimate and confidence interval of the treatment effect when the ML estimate of the baseline risk falls into specified range. These interval estimates reflect nonnormality of the joint distribution of the ML estimate of the baseline risk and the treatment effect. The method can be easily implemented by using any software that generates normal distribution. The method can also be used to obtain point and interval estimates of baseline risk and any other measure of treatment effect such as risk ratio and the number needed to treat. The method can also be extended from logistic model to other models such as log-linear model.

The SIMEX approach to measurement error correction in meta-analysis with baseline risk as covariate.

This paper investigates the use of SIMEX, a simulation-based measurement error correction technique, for meta-analysis of studies involving the baseline risk of subjects in the control group as explanatory variable. The approach accounts for the measurement error affecting the information about either the outcome in the treatment group or the baseline risk available from each study, while requiring no assumption about the distribution of the true unobserved baseline risk. This robustness property, together with the feasibility of computation, makes SIMEX very attractive. The approach is suggested as an alternative to the usual likelihood analysis, which can provide misleading inferential results when the commonly assumed normal distribution for the baseline risk is violated. The performance of SIMEX is compared to the likelihood method and to the moment-based correction through an extensive simulation study and the analysis of two datasets from the medical literature.

Simultaneous evaluation of the imprecision and inconsistency domains of GRADE can be performed using prediction intervals.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the use of prediction interval (PI) for the simultaneous evaluation of the imprecision and inconsistency domains of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation using stakeholder-provided decision thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We propose transforming the PI of a meta-analysis from a relative risk scale to an absolute risk difference using an appropriate baseline risk. The transformed PI is compared to stakeholder-provided thresholds on an absolute scale. We applied this approach to a large convenience sample of meta-analyses extracted from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and compared it against the traditional approach of rating imprecision and inconsistency separately using confidence intervals and statistical measures of heterogeneity, respectively. We used empirically derived thresholds following Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation guidance. RESULTS: The convenience sample consisted of 2516 meta-analyses (median of 7 studies per meta-analysis; interquartile range: 5-11). The main analysis showed the percentage of meta-analyses in which both approaches had the same number of certainty levels rated down was 59%. The PI approach led to more levels of rating down (lower certainty) in 27% and to fewer levels of rating down (higher certainty) in 14%. Multiple sensitivity analyses using different thresholds showed similar results, but the PI approach had particularly increased width with a larger number of included studies and higher I2 values. CONCLUSION: Using the PI for simultaneous evaluation of imprecision and inconsistency seems feasible and logical but can lead to lower certainty ratings. The PI-based approach requires further testing in future systematic reviews and guidelines using context-specific thresholds and evidence-to-decision criteria. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The prediction interval (PI) addresses both the imprecision and inconsistency domains of certainty. In this study, we applied this PI approach to simultaneously judge both domains and compared this to the traditional approach of making these separate judgments. The 2 approaches had moderate agreement. The PI-based approach requires further testing in future systematic reviews and guidelines using context-specific thresholds and evidence-to-decision criteria.

Hierarchical models that address measurement error are needed to evaluate the correlation between treatment effect and control group event rate.

OBJECTIVES: To apply a hierarchical model (HM) that addresses measurement error in regression of the treatment effect on the control group event rate (CR). We compare HM to weighted linear regression (WLR) which is subject to measurement error and mathematical coupling. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed published HMs that address measurement error and implemented a Bayesian version in open-source code to facilitate adoption by meta-analysts. We compared WLR and HM across a very large convenience sample of meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: We applied both approaches (WLR and an HM that addresses measurement error) to 3193 meta-analyses that included 33,071 studies (average 10.28 studies per meta-analysis). A statistically significant slope suggesting an association between the treatment effect and CR was demonstrated with both approaches in 568 (17.19%) meta-analyses, with neither approach in 2036 (63.77%) meta-analyses, only with WLS in 229 (7.17%) and only with HM in 360 (11.28%) meta-analyses. The majority of slopes was negative (WLR 85%, HM 83%). In the majority of cases, HM had wider confidence intervals (72.53%) and slopes farther from the null (64.77%). CONCLUSION: Approximately 28% of meta-analyses demonstrate a significant association between the treatment effect and CR when HM is used to address measurement error, which can suggest frequent lack of portability of the relative effect across baseline risks. User-friendly open-source code is provided to meta-analysts interested in exploring this association.

Baseline risk factors associated with immune related adverse events and atezolizumab.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer patients in the last decade, but immune-related adverse events (irAEs) pose significant clinical challenges. Despite advances in the management of these unique toxicities, there remains an unmet need to further characterize the patient-level drivers of irAEs in order to optimize the benefit/risk balance in patients receiving cancer immunotherapy. Methods: An individual-patient data post-hoc meta-analysis was performed using data from 10,344 patients across 15 Roche sponsored clinical trials with atezolizumab in five different solid tumor types to assess the association between baseline risk factors and the time to onset of irAE. In this study, the overall analysis was conducted by treatment arm, indication, toxicity grade and irAE type, and the study design considered confounder adjustment to assess potential differences in risk factor profiles. Results: This analysis demonstrates that the safety profile of atezolizumab is generally consistent across indications in the 15 studies evaluated. In addition, our findings corroborate with prior reviews which suggest that reported rates of irAEs with PD-(L)1 inhibitors are nominally lower than CTLA-4 inhibitors. In our analysis, there were no remarkable differences in the distribution of toxicity grades between indications, but some indication-specific differences regarding the type of irAE were seen across treatment arms, where pneumonitis mainly occurred in lung cancer, and hypothyroidism and rash had a higher prevalence in advanced renal cell carcinoma compared to all other indications. Results showed consistency of risk factors across indications and by toxicity grade. The strongest and most consistent risk factors were mostly organ-specific such as elevated liver enzymes for hepatitis and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) for thyroid toxicities. Another strong but non-organ-specific risk factor was ethnicity, which was associated with rash, hepatitis and pneumonitis. Further understanding the impact of ethnicity on ICI associated irAEs is considered as an area for future research. Conclusions: Overall, this analysis demonstrated that atezolizumab safety profile is consistent across indications, is clinically distinguishable from comparator regimens without checkpoint inhibition, and in line with literature, seems to suggest a nominally lower reported rates of irAEs vs CTLA-4 inhibitors. This analysis demonstrates several risk factors for irAEs by indication, severity and location of irAE, and by patient ethnicity. Additionally, several potential irAE risk factors that have been published to date, such as demographic factors, liver enzymes, TSH and blood cell counts, are assessed in this large-scale meta-analysis, providing a more consistent picture of their relevance. However, given the small effects size, changes to clinical management of irAEs associated with the use of Anti-PDL1 therapy are not warranted.

Quantifying absolute benefit for adjuvant treatment options in renal cell carcinoma: A living interactive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess comparative effectiveness of adjuvant therapies for renal cell carcinoma and quantify the absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments by clinicopathological risk groups. METHODS: This 'living' review was conducted using Living Interactive Evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. RESULTS: The 'living' results are available on an interactive website. This network meta-analysis, including six RCTs with 7525 participants, showed that pembrolizumab (rank 1) significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib but not when compared to pazopanib, and axitinib. The risk of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events was increased with pembrolizumab as compared to placebo and axitinib but not when compared to sunitinib. The absolute benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab increases substantially with larger tumor size, nodal positivity and higher Leibovich scores. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that pembrolizumab delays disease progression compared to sunitinib. A risk-adapted strategy should be used in patients undergoing consideration for treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab.

Sex-Related Differences in Long-Term Outcomes After Early-Onset Myocardial Infarction.

Importance: There is growing awareness of sex-related differences in cardiovascular risk profiles, but less is known about whether these extend to pre-menopausal females experiencing an early-onset myocardial infarction (MI), who may benefit from the protective effects of estrogen exposure. Methods: A nationwide study involving 125 Italian Coronary Care Units recruited 2,000 patients between 1998 and 2002 hospitalized for a type I myocardial infarction before the age of 45 years (male, n = 1,778 (88.9%). Patients were followed up for a median of 19.9 years (IQR 18.1-22.6). The primary composite endpoint was the occurrence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial re-infarction or non-fatal stroke, and the secondary endpoint of hospitalization for revascularisation by means of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Results: ST-elevation MI was the most frequent presentation among both men and women (85.1 vs. 87.4%, p = ns), but the men had a greater baseline coronary atherosclerotic burden (median Duke Coronary Artery Disease Index: 48 vs. 23; median Syntax score 9 vs. 7; both p < 0.001). The primary composite endpoint occurred less frequently among women (25.7% vs. 37.0%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.91; p = 0.01) despite being less likely to receive treatment with most secondary prevention medications during follow up. Conclusions: There are significant sex-related differences in baseline risk factors and outcomes among patients with early-onset MI: women present with a lower atherosclerotic disease burden and, although they are less frequently prescribed secondary prevention measures, experience better long-term outcomes. Trial Registration: 4272/98 Ospedale Niguarda, Ca' Granda 03/09/1998.

Controversy and Debate : Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 4 :Odds Ratios are far from "portable" - A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recently Doi et al. argued that risk ratios should be replaced with odds ratios in clinical research. We disagreed, and empirically documented the lack of portability of odds ratios, while Doi et al. defended their position. In this response we highlight important errors in their position. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We counter Doi et al.'s arguments by further examining the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks in 20,198 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Doi et al.'s claim that odds ratios are portable is invalid because 1) their reasoning is circular: they assume a model under which the odds ratio is constant and show that under such a model the odds ratio is portable; 2) the method they advocate to convert odds ratios to risk ratios is biased; 3) their empirical example is readily-refuted by counter-examples of meta-analyses in which the risk ratio is portable but the odds ratio isn't; and 4) they fail to consider the causal determinants of meta-analytic inclusion criteria: Doi et al. mistakenly claim that variation in odds ratios with different baseline risks in meta-analyses is due to collider bias. Empirical comparison between the correlations of odds ratios, and risk ratios, with baseline risks show that the portability of odds ratios and risk ratios varies across settings. CONCLUSION: The suggestion to replace risk ratios with odds ratios is based on circular reasoning and a confusion of mathematical and empirical results. It is especially misleading for meta-analyses and clinical guidance. Neither the odds ratio nor the risk ratio is universally portable. To address this lack of portability, we reinforce our suggestion to report variation in effect measures conditioning on modifying factors such as baseline risk; understanding such variation is essential to patient-centered practice.

Controversy and Debate: Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 2: Is the Odds Ratio "portable" in meta-analysis? Time to consider bivariate generalized linear mixed model.

OBJECTIVES: A recent paper by Doi et al. advocated completely replacing the relative risk (RR) with the odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure in clinical trials and meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Besides some practical advantages of RR over OR, Doi et al.'s key assumption that the OR is "portable" in the meta-analysis, that is, study-specific ORs are likely not correlated with baseline risks, was not well justified. STUDY DESIGNS AND SETTINGS: We summarized Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between study-specific ORs and baseline risks in 40,243 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Study-specific ORs tend to be higher in studies with lower baseline risks of disease for most meta-analyses in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Using an actual meta-analysis example, we demonstrate that there is a strong negative correlation between OR (RR or RD) with the baseline risk and the conditional effects notably vary with baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing RR or RD with OR is currently unadvisable in clinical trials and meta-analyses. It is possible that no effect measure is "portable" in a meta-analysis. In addition to the overall (or marginal) effect, we suggest presenting the conditional effect based on the baseline risk using a bivariate generalized linear mixed model.

A modeling approach to derive baseline risk estimates for GRADE recommendations: Concepts, development, and results of its application to the American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies. STUDY DESIGN: The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events. RESULTS: We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making.

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. METHODS: We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. DISCUSSION: This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021234119.

Risk related therapy in meta-analyses of critical care interventions: Bayesian meta-regression analysis.

PURPOSE: The relationship between treatment efficacy and patient risk is explored in a series of meta-analyses from the critical care domain, focusing on mortality outcome. METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials were identified by electronic search over the period 2002 to July 2018. A Bayesian meta-regression model was employed, using the risk difference metric to estimate the relationship between mortality difference and control arm risk, and estimate the mortality difference with and without adjusting for control arm risk. RESULTS: Of 780 initially identified published systematic reviews, 113 had appropriate mortality data comprising 123 analysable groups. The 123 meta-analyses were pharmaceutical therapeutic (59.3%), non-pharmaceutical therapeutic (24.4%) and nutritional (16.3%), with a 25% overall average control arm mortality. In 25/123 (20%) analyses, meta-regression indicated significant baseline risk (Bayesian 95% credible intervals excluding zero). In all analyses, the relationship between risk-difference and control arm risk was negative indicating a positive treatment effect with increasing control arm risk. Adjusted estimates identified six studies with significant positive treatment effects, not evident until after adjustment for control arm risk. CONCLUSION: Underlying risk-related therapy is apparent in meta-analyses of the critically-ill and identification is of importance to both the conduct and interpretation of these meta-analyses.

Fracture and Bone Mineral Density Response by Baseline Risk in Patients Treated With Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate: Results From the Phase 3 ACTIVExtend Trial.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 ACTIVE study (NCT01343004), 18 months of abaloparatide 80 µg daily (subcutaneous injection) in postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fracture significantly reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, clinical, and major osteoporotic fractures and significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) versus placebo regardless of baseline risk factors. Women from the abaloparatide and placebo groups who completed ACTIVE were eligible for ACTIVExtend (NCT01657162), in which all enrollees received sequential, open-label monotherapy with alendronate 70 mg once weekly for up to 24 months. This prespecified analysis evaluated whether fracture risk reductions and bone mineral density (BMD) gains associated with abaloparatide during ACTIVE persisted through the full 43-month ACTIVE-ACTIVExtend study period in nine prespecified baseline risk subgroups. Baseline risk subgroups included BMD T-score at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck (≤ - 2.5 versus > - 2.5 and ≤ -3.0 versus > - 3.0), history of nonvertebral fracture (yes/no), prevalent vertebral fracture (yes/no), and age (<65 versus 65 to <75 versus ≥75 years). Forest plots display treatment effect. Treatment-by-subgroup interactions were tested using the Breslow-Day test, Cox proportional hazards model, and ANCOVA model. After the combined ACTIVE-ACTIVExtend study period, reductions in relative risk for new vertebral, nonvertebral, clinical, and major osteoporotic fractures were greater among patients in the abaloparatide/alendronate group than among those in the placebo/alendronate group across all nine baseline risk subgroups. BMD gains at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck were greater in the abaloparatide/alendronate group versus the placebo/alendronate group. No clinically meaningful interaction between treatment assignment and any baseline risk variable was observed. The sequence of abaloparatide for 18 months followed by alendronate for up to 24 months appears to be an effective treatment option for a wide range of postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporotic fractures. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.