Article

Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?

Ottawa Health Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Clinical Trials (Impact Factor: 1.94). 02/2005; 2(3):218-29; discussion 229-32. DOI: 10.1191/1740774505cn085oa
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Aprotinin is a serine protease inhibitor used to limit perioperative bleeding and reduce the need for donated blood transfusions during cardiac surgery. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin evaluating its effect on the outcome of perioperative transfusion have been published since 1987, and systematic reviews were conducted in 1992 and 1997.
A systematic search was conducted for all RCTs of aprotinin that used placebo controls or were open-label with no active control treatment. Data collected included the primary outcome, objective of each study, whether a systematic review was cited or conducted as part of the background and/or rationale for the study and the number of previously published RCTs cited. Cumulative meta-analyses were performed.
Sixty-four randomized, controlled trials of aprotinin were found, conducted between 1987 and 2002, reporting an endpoint of perioperative transfusion. Median trial size was 64 subjects, with a range of 20 to 1784. A cumulative meta-analysis indicated that aprotinin greatly decreased the need for perioperative transfusion, stabilizing at an odds ratio of 0.25 (p < 10 - 6) by the 12th study, published in June of 1992. The upper limit of the confidence interval never exceeded 0.65 and results were similar in all subgroups. Citation of previous RCTs was extremely low, with a median of 20% of prior trials cited. Only 7 of 44 (15%) of subsequent reports referenced the largest trial (N = 1784), which was 28 times larger than the median trial size.
This study demonstrates that investigators evaluating aprotinin were not adequately citing previous research, resulting in a large number of RCTs being conducted to address efficacy questions that prior trials had already definitively answered. Institutional review boards and journals could reduce the number of redundant trials by requiring investigators to conduct adequate searches for prior evidence and conducting systematic reviews.

Full-text

Available from: Brian Hutton, Jan 04, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "Cumulative meta-analysis" describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e102670. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0102670 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal 09/2014; DOI:10.1503/cmaj.131582 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To examine whether, according to the conclusions of a 2000 systematic review with meta-analysis on interventions to prevent pain from propofol injection that provided a research agenda to guide further research on the topic, subsequently published trials were more often optimally blinded, reported on children, and used the most efficacious intervention as comparator; and to check whether the number of new trials published each year had decreased and whether the designs of trials that cited the review differed from those that did not. Study design Systematic review comparing old trials (published before, and included in, the review) with new trials (published afterwards). Data sources Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and bibliographies to January 2013. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised studies testing any intervention to prevent pain from propofol injection in humans. Results 136 new trials (19 778 patients) were retrieved. Compared with the 56 old trials (6264 patients), the proportion of optimally blinded trials had increased from 10.7% to 38.2% (difference 27.5%, 95% confidence interval 16.0% to 39.0%, P<0.001), and the proportion of trials that used the most efficacious intervention as comparator had increased from 12.5% to 27.9% (difference 15.4%, 4.0% to 26.9%, P=0.022). The proportion of paediatric trials had increased from 5.4% to 12.5%, although this was not significant (difference 7.1%, −1.0% to 15.2%, P=0.141). The number of new trials published each year was significantly higher (median number/year 12 (range 7-20) v 2.5 (0-9), P<0.001) with no obvious decreasing trend. 72.8% (n=99) of the new trials cited the review, with their designs similar to trials not citing the review. Only 36.0% (n=49) of the new trials were considered clinically relevant since they used the most efficacious intervention as comparator or included a paediatric population. Conclusions The impact of the systematic review on the design of subsequent research was low. There was an improvement in the reporting of optimal blinding procedures and a tendency towards an increase in the proportion of paediatric trials. The most efficacious intervention was more often chosen as comparator but remained marginally used, and the number of trials published per year had not decreased. The use of systematic reviews should be encouraged to inform rational, and thus ethical, trial design and improve the relevance of new research.
    BMJ Clinical Research 08/2014; 349:g5219. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5219 · 14.09 Impact Factor