Citations

AbstractAimsPioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, was approved for treatment of Type 2 diabetes. However, several observational studies suggest an association of pioglitazone with an increased risk of bladder cancer in patients with diabetes. Therefore, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the magnitude of this association and the quality of the supporting evidence.MethodsElectronic databases were queried to identify controlled studies of pioglitazone that measured the risk of bladder cancer.ResultsSix studies involving 215 142 patients using pioglitazone were included, with a median period of follow‐up of 44 months. The hazard of developing bladder cancer was significantly higher in patients using pioglitazone (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 1.09–1.39; I2 = 0%) compared with control groups. The risk of bias was moderate across the six studies. Considering an incidence rate of 20.8 per 100 000 person years, the number needed to harm was five additional cases of bladder cancer per 100 000 person years.ConclusionsPatients treated with pioglitazone have a slight increased risk of bladder cancer compared to general population. Patient involvement and weighing treatment benefits versus risks should be discussed with patient toward shared decision. Patients with type 2 diabetes with risk factors, such as family history, smoking, or exposure to certain forms of chemotherapy may need to consider other anti‐hyperglycemic agents. Also, pioglitazone should be discontinued in type 2 diabetes patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer.

For decades, investigators have conducted innovative research on shared decision-making (SDM), helping patients and clinicians to discuss health decisions and balance evidence with patients’ preferences for possible outcomes of options. In addition, investigators have developed and used rigorous methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER), comparing the benefits and risks of different interventions in real-world settings with outcomes that matter to patients and other stakeholders. However, incorporating CER findings into clinical practice presents numerous challenges. In March 2012, we organized a conference at Washington University in St Louis (MO, USA) aimed at developing a network of researchers to collaborate in developing, conducting and disseminating research about the implementation of CER through SDM. Meeting attendees discussed conceptual similarities and differences between CER and SDM, challenges in implementing CER and SDM in practice, specific challenges when engaging SDM with unique populations and examples of ways to overcome these challenges. CER and SDM are related processes that emphasize examining the best clinical evidence and how it applies to real patients in real practice settings. SDM can provide one opportunity for clinicians to discuss CER findings with patients and engage in a dialog about how to manage uncertainty about evidence in order to make decisions on an individual patient level. This meeting highlighted key challenges and suggested avenues to pursue such that CER and SDM can be implemented into routine clinical practice.

Abstract: To ensure that participants in randomized controlled trials are protected from harm, interim analyses and review of results by an independent data monitoring committee have become standard practice. If an analysis of accumulating data partway through a trial reveals an unanticipated degree of benefit or toxicity, or differences in outcomes between the intervention and control groups are so unimpressive that any prospect of a positive result with the planned sample size is extremely unlikely, investigators may stop the trial earlier than originally scheduled. The practice of stopping randomized controlled trials early is, however, problematic, especially if the trial is stopped for apparent benefit. Concerns in trials stopped early for apparent benefit include appropriate interpretation of results and ethical problems concerning trial participants, clinicians, and society as a whole. In this article, we review the epidemiology of trials stopped early and illustrate some of the problems and controversies associated with stopping randomized controlled trials early for apparent benefit. Finally, we offer guidance for clinicians, those running clinical trials, and authors of systematic reviews.

Abstract: Randomized controlled trials in orthopaedics are often underpowered to detect important differences in outcomes. Composite end points (CEPs) hold promise as a strategy to address this issue by combining multiple end points into one summary measure, thus increasing the observed event rate. The use of CEPs by trialists, however, can be problematic when they include components that vary greatly in importance to patients and when differences in apparent effect between components are large. We present an overview of CEPs with a focus on appropriate design and interpretation of results.

In this paper, we explore the relative value that different methods offer in answering some stereotypical comparative effectiveness research questions with the goal of informing development of a ‘translation table’ – a selection tool for choosing appropriate methods for specific comparative effectiveness research questions. This paper was written as a parallel effort to Greenfield and Kaplan (also in this volume) to support the endeavor described in the manuscript by Tunis et al. (also in this volume). Originally based on four cases, the current article has been shortened to two cases for the current discussion. These cases represent research priorities proposed to orient the work of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, comparative clinical effectiveness and comparative health services.