OP91 Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis Of Exercise Rehabilitation In Heart Failure

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 33-34
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Sarah Walker ◽  
Fiona Warren ◽  
Neil Smart ◽  
Massimo Piepoli ◽  
...  

Introduction:Traditional meta-analyses synthesize aggregate data obtained from study publications or study authors, such as a treatment effect estimate and its associated uncertainty. An increasingly important approach is the meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) where the raw individual-level data are obtained for each study and used for synthesis. This study compares and discusses results from an IPD meta-analysis vs standard meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of exercise cardiac rehabilitation in chronic heart failure (CHF).Methods:Based on a previous systematic review, the Exercise Training Meta-Analysis of Trials for Chronic Heart Failure (ExTraMATCH II) identified and collected IPD from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exercise rehabilitation with a non-exercise control with a minimum follow-up of six months. For this abstract, the outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Original IPD were checked for consistency and compiled in a master dataset. Standard meta-analytic models were used for aggregate data whilst two-stage and one-stage approaches, accounting for the clustering of participants within studies, were planned for statistical analyses of IPD.Results:Overall thirty-three RCTs were included in the original systematic review, whereas within the ExTraMatch II project, IPD on all-cause mortality were obtained from seventeen RCTs of approximately 3,700 patients. From aggregate data there was no significant difference in pooled mortality (relative risk 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.26). IPD analysis revealed 701 events across exercise and control groups. Our ongoing IPD analyses will allow us to examine how patients’ characteristics (e.g. age, New York Heart Association functional class, ejection fraction) modify treatment benefit.Conclusions:Given the limitations of current trial level meta-analysis evidence in CHF, access to individual data from several RCTs offers a timely and important opportunity to revisit the question of which CHF patient subgroups benefit most from exercise-based rehabilitation.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles ROY ◽  
Chloé Rousseau ◽  
Alexis Jutel ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
Gabriel Robert

Abstract Background. Duloxetine is an antidepressant which benefits from a wide range of approval in elderly population while its safety of use in elderly population, compared to younger adults, is not clearly assessed. A comparison of tolerability of duloxetine between elderly and younger adults would help to rule on this issue. Methods and Design. This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) of all double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing the number of serious adverse events among individuals taking duloxetine in comparison to placebo between participants at least 65 years and younger adults in conditions approved by the European Medical Agency (EMA) and the Food Drug Administration (FDA). Secondarily, will be compared the number of any adverse events, clinical efficacy and quality of life between elderly and younger adults under duloxetine, in comparison to placebo. Relevant studies were selected on ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, data sharing platforms, FDA and EMA websites, and from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of duloxetine on PubMed, following Cochrane’s recommendations. Sponsors and authors from eligible studies were invited to share IPD on data sharing platform or directly with our research team. As data cannot be aggregate into a unique database, a two step-approach meta-analysis will be undertaken. Qualitative results from available data. 77 eligible randomized controlled trials were identified, representing 25303 participants. From online available data, 35 trials were assessed as being at an overall low risk of bias, 31 trials at an unclear risk of bias and 1 at high risk of bias. Evaluation of risk of bias was not feasible for 10 studies. Conclusion. This study would represent the first meta-analysis investigating the safety of duloxetine in elderly population across all conditions approved by European and American regulatory authorities with an overall low risk of bias. Registration. PROSPERO: 2019 CRD42019130488.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249542
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Bamforth ◽  
Ruchi Chhibba ◽  
Thomas W. Ferguson ◽  
Jenna Sabourin ◽  
Domenic Pieroni ◽  
...  

Background Readmission following hospital discharge is common and is a major financial burden on healthcare systems. Objectives Our objectives were to 1) identify studies describing post-discharge interventions and their efficacy with respect to reducing risk of mortality and rate of hospital readmission; and 2) identify intervention characteristics associated with efficacy. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and CINAHL. Our selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing post-discharge interventions with usual care on rates of hospital readmission and mortality in high-risk chronic disease patient populations. We used random effects meta-analyses to estimate pooled risk ratios for all-cause and cause-specific mortality as well as all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization. Results We included 31 randomized controlled trials encompassing 9654 patients (24 studies in CHF, 4 in COPD, 1 in both CHF and COPD, 1 in CKD and 1 in an undifferentiated population). Meta-analysis showed post-discharge interventions reduced cause-specific (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.63–0.80) and all cause (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.81–0.99) hospitalization, all-cause (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65–0.83) and cause-specific mortality (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.54–0.84) in CHF studies, and all-cause hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32–0.83) in COPD studies. The inclusion of a cardiac nurse in the multidisciplinary team was associated with greater efficacy in reducing all-cause mortality among patients discharged after heart failure admission (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.54–0.75 vs. HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.73–1.03). Conclusions Post-discharge interventions reduced all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, and cause-specific hospitalization in CHF patients and all-cause hospitalization in COPD patients. The presence of a cardiac nurse was associated with greater efficacy in included studies. Additional research is needed on the impact of post-discharge intervention strategies in COPD and CKD patients.


TH Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. e383-e392
Author(s):  
Marie H. Nygaard ◽  
Anne-Mette Hvas ◽  
Erik L. Grove

Abstract Introduction There is conflicting evidence on the risk–benefit ratio of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in heart failure (HF) patients without atrial fibrillation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OAC in HF patients in sinus rhythm. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies, comparing OAC with antiplatelet or no treatment/placebo in patients with HF. Outcomes evaluated were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Results Five RCTs and three cohort studies were included. OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke when compared with no treatment/placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.47, 0.94]) and antiplatelet therapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.81]). No significant reduction was found in MI, when OAC was compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: [0.63, 1.07]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: [0.60, 1.81]). The all-cause mortality analysis showed no significant reduction when comparing OAC with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.87, 1.12]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.16]). The nonsignificant effect of OAC on all-cause mortality was supported by a meta-analysis of the three cohort studies (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: [0.75, 1.38]). Patients treated with OAC had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: [1.55, 3.00]) and a numerically higher risk when compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: [0.87, 6.49]). Conclusion The present study does not support the routine use of OAC in patients with HF in sinus rhythm.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongxuan Xu ◽  
Yunqing Liu ◽  
Lingbing Meng ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Deping Liu

Background: Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) level is considered an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint of death or readmission in cardiovascular disease patients. However, the causal relationship between uric acid-lowering therapies (ULTs) and heart failure is still controversial.Design: Meta-analyses were performed to systematically compile available evidence to determine the overall effect of ULTs on heart failure patients.Method: We conducted this systematic review following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials related to the influence of a ULT intervention in people with heart failure. Data extracted from the included studies were subjected to a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ULTs to a control.Results: Pooled analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 1.63%; 95%CI, −1.61 to 4.88; p = 0.32; three studies). Pooled analysis of the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 4.59; 95%CI, −12.683 to 22.00; p = 0.61; four studies). Pooled analysis of BNP/NT-pro-BNP led to a nearly statistically significant result towards the ULT group (SMD, −0.30; 95%CI, −0.64 to 0.04; p = 0.08; five studies). Pooled analysis of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death between ULTs (all XOIs) and placebo did not show a significant difference (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.15, p = 0.39).Conclusion: ULTs did not improve LVEF, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, 6MWT, all-cause mortality, and CV death in heart failure patients. UA may just be a risk marker of heart failure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document