Murad, M. Hassan

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease, usually caused by tobacco smoking, but other important risk factors include exposures to combustion products of biomass fuels and environmental pollution. The introduction of several new (combination) inhaler therapies, increasing uncertainty about the role of inhaled corticosteroids and a rapid proliferation of the literature on management of stable COPD in general, call for novel ways of evidence synthesis in this area. A systematic review and evidence map can provide the basis for shared decision-making tools and help to establish a future research agenda. Methods and analysis This systematic review will follow an umbrella systematic review design (also called overview of reviews). We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in process and other non-indexed citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from database inception to the present. We will include systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention on one or more patient-important outcomes and/or lung function in patients with stable COPD. For every intervention/outcome pair, one systematic review will be included. An a priori protocol will guide, which systematic reviews will be chosen, how their credibility will be evaluated, and how the quality of the body of evidence will be rated. Data will be synthesised into an evidence map that will present a matrix that depicts each available treatment for stable COPD with a quantitative estimate on symptoms/outcomes from the patient perspective, along with an indication of the size and certainty in the evidence. Ethics and dissemination Approval by a research ethics committee is not required since the review will only include published data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095079

Background: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and European Heart Journal ) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%–57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%–85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%–12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%–47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%–2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%–67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%–60%) reported harms or adverse effects. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are a highly conserved family of enzymes whose main function is to preserve genomic integrity following DNA damage. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are increasingly used in cancers with deficiencies in homologous recombination. Clinical trials in breast and ovarian cancers have led to several FDA approvals in recent years, and their use in clinical practice is continuing to rise. It is thus necessary to assess their adverse event (AE) profile. Method: Literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus (inception through October 26, 2018). Eligible studies were phase 3, randomized, controlled trials that compared single agent PARPi to placebo or standard treatment. Number of patients treated and AEs reported were recorded. Observed incidence of AE was reported with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran Q statistic and I2 statistics quantified the proportion of heterogeneity not due to chance. Results: Databases revealed 869 references. Of these, 6 were eligible: 2 in breast cancer (OlympiAD, EMBRACA) and 4 in ovarian cancer (NOVA, ARIEL3, SOLO1, SOLO2). PARPi included niraparib (NOVA), olaparib (OlympiAD, SOLO1, SOLO2), rucaparib (ARIEL3), and talazoparib (EMBRACA). Of 1,685 patients who received PARPi, incidence of any AE, regardless of grade, was 98.5% (95% CI, 97.2–99.2%). Common AEs were: nausea (incidence rate, 68.9% and 95% CI, 58.7%–77.5%), fatigue (56.3%, 45.3%–66.8%), anemia (46.3%, 37.2%–55.8%), vomiting (33.7%, 29.5%–38.3%), neutropenia (24.7%, 15.3%–37.4%), headache (23.9%, 19.9%–28.4%), and reduced appetite (21.7%, 19.3%–24.3%). Myeloid neoplasms were rare (1.2%, 0.7%–1.9%). Incidence of grade 3 or higher AE was 44.3% (30.2%–59.5%) and often related to myelosuppression, specifically anemia (24.7%, 15.3%–37.4%), neutropenia (10.7%, 6.6%–16.9%), and thrombocytopenia (5.0%, 1.7%–14.0%). Incidence of serious AE was 24.3% (19.4%–29.9%); dose interruption occurred in 53.3% (41.2%–65.0%) and dose reduction occurred in 39.2% (23.6%–57.4%). 10% (7.4%–13.6%) of patients discontinued therapy due to AE. Death due to AE was rare; less than 1% (0.4%, 0.2%–0.8%) in all trials. Conclusion: Myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicities were the most commonly reported AE in 6 randomized phase 3 trials of PARPi for breast and ovarian cancers. Therapy was rarely discontinued due to AE. It remains to be seen whether these results will be reflected in clinical practice.

Abstract Background Osteoporosis and osteopenia are associated with increased fracture incidence in postmenopausal women. We aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of various available pharmacological therapies. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials that enrolled postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis and evaluated the risk of hip, vertebral, or nonvertebral fractures. A network meta-analysis was conducted using the multivariate random effects method. Results We included 107 trials (193,987 postmenopausal women; mean age, 66 years; 55% white; median follow-up, 28 months). A significant reduction in hip fractures was observed with romosozumab, alendronate, zoledronate, risedronate, denosumab, estrogen with progesterone, and calcium in combination with vitamin D. A significant reduction in nonvertebral fractures was observed with abaloparatide, romosozumab, denosumab, teriparatide, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, lasofoxifene, tibolone, estrogen with progesterone, and vitamin D. A significant reduction in vertebral fractures was observed with abaloparatide, teriparatide, parathyroid hormone 1-84, romosozumab, strontium ranelate, denosumab, zoledronate, risedronate, alendronate, ibandronate, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene, estrogen with progesterone, tibolone, and calcitonin. Teriparatide, abaloparatide, denosumab, and romosozumab were associated with the highest relative risk reductions, whereas ibandronate and selective estrogen receptor modulators had lower efficacy. The evidence for the treatment of fractures with vitamin D and calcium remains limited despite numerous large trials. Conclusions This network meta-analysis provides comparative effective estimates for the various available treatments to reduce the risk of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women.

Abstract Background Several treatments are available to reduce the risk of fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis. The choice of treatment requires knowledge of patients’ values and preferences. The aim of the present study was to summarize what is known about the values and preferences relevant to the management of osteoporosis in women. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases for studies reported in any language that had included women who had already started or were about to start any pharmacological therapy for osteoporosis. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The results were synthesized narratively. Results We included 26 studies reporting on 15,348 women (mean age, 66 years). The women considered the effectiveness and adverse events equally, followed by the convenience of taking the drug and its effect on daily routine (less frequent dosing was preferred, the oral route was preferred, and the injectable route was preferred over oral if given less frequently). The treatment cost and duration were less important factors for decision making. Fear of breast cancer and fear of resuming uterine bleeding were common reasons for not choosing estrogen therapy. Calcium and vitamin D were viewed as safe and natural. Across the studies, the preferences were not affected by age, previous drug exposure, or employment status. Conclusions Women starting osteoporosis medications value effectiveness and side effects equally and prefer medications given less frequently. Injectable drugs appear acceptable if given less frequently. More research on patient values and preferences is needed to guide decision making in osteoporosis.