Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Treatment Effect in Earlier Trials of Patients With Chronic Medical Conditions: A Meta-Epidemiologic Study

Published:February 21, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.10.020

      Abstract

      Objective

      To determine whether the early trials in chronic medical conditions demonstrate an effect size that is larger than that in subsequent trials.

      Methods

      We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a drug or device in patients with chronic medical conditions through meta-analyses (MAs) published between January 1, 2007, and June 23, 2015, in the 10 general medical journals with highest impact factor. We estimated the prevalence of having the largest effect size or heterogeneity in the first 2 published trials. We evaluated the association of the exaggerated early effect with several a priori hypothesized explanatory variables.

      Results

      We included 70 MAs that had included a total of 930 trials (average of 13 [range, 5-48] RCTs per MA) with average follow-up of 24 (range, 1-168) months. The prevalence of the exaggerated early effect (ie, proportion of MAs with largest effect or heterogeneity in the first 2 trials) was 37%. These early trials had an effect size that was on average 2.67 times larger than the overall pooled effect size (ratio of relative effects, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.12-3.37). The presence of exaggerated effect was not significantly associated with trial size; number of events; length of follow-up; intervention duration; number of study sites; inpatient versus outpatient setting; funding source; stopping a trial early; adequacy of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, or blinding; loss to follow-up or the test for publication bias.

      Conclusion

      Trials evaluating treatments of chronic medical conditions published early in the chain of evidence commonly demonstrate an exaggerated treatment effect compared with subsequent trials. At the present time, this phenomenon remains unpredictable. Considering the increasing morbidity and mortality of chronic medical conditions, decision makers should act on early evidence with caution.

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      MA (meta-analysis), RCT (randomized controlled trial)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ioannidis J.
        • Lau J.
        Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98: 831-836
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • Trikalinos T.A.
        Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 543-549
        • Pfeiffer T.
        • Bertram L.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Quantifying selective reporting and the Proteus phenomenon for multiple datasets with similar bias.
        PLoS One. 2011; 6: e18362
        • Wang Z.
        • Alahdab F.
        • Almasri J.
        • et al.
        Early studies reported extreme findings with large variability: a meta-epidemiologic study in the field of endocrinology.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 72: 27-32
        • Murad M.H.
        • Wang Z.
        Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiologic methodology research.
        Evid Based Med. 2017; 22: 139-142
        • Parekh A.K.
        • Goodman R.A.
        • Gordon C.
        • et al.
        Managing multiple chronic conditions: a strategic framework for improving health outcomes and quality of life.
        Public Health Rep. 2011; 126: 460-471
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Gotzsche P.C.
        • et al.
        The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928
        • Parmar M.K.
        • Torri V.
        • Stewart L.
        Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints.
        Stat Med. 1998; 17 (Erratum in Stat Med. 2004;23(11):1817): 2815-2834
        • Kalbfleisch J.D.
        • Prentice R.L.
        Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data.
        Wiley, Hoboken, NJ1980
        • DerSimonian R.
        • Laird N.
        Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177-188
        • Egger M.
        • Davey Smith G.
        • Schneider M.
        • Minder C.
        Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.
        BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634
        • Hoyert D.L.
        • Xu J.
        Deaths: preliminary data for 2011.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012; 61: 1-51
      1. United Health Foundation. America's health rankings: a call to action for individuals and their communities. 2012. http://www.asaging.org/web-seminars/america%E2%80%99s-health-rankings-senior-report-call-action-individuals-and-their-communities. Accessed April 5, 2015.

      2. Rudegeair P. Americans living longer, with unhealthy lifestyles: report. 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-rankings-idUSBRE8BA1D220121211. Accessed April 5, 2015.

        • Ward B.W.
        • Schiller J.S.
        Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among US adults: estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010.
        Prev Chronic Dis. 2013; 10: E65
        • Viergever R.F.
        • Li K.
        Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013.
        BMJ Open. 2015; 5: e008932