Advantages and disadvantages of observational and experimental

Document Sample
Advantages and disadvantages of observational and experimental Powered By Docstoc
					 Advantages and disadvantages
      of observational and
experimental studies for diabetes
            research
   Sarah Wild, University of Edinburgh
    BIRO Academy 2nd Residential
                Course
             January 2011
                   Outline
•   Hierarchy of research evidence
•   Advantages of trials
•   Limitations of trials
•   Advantages of observational studies
•   Limitations of observational studies
•   Summary
         Levels of evidence
          for interventions
   Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all
    relevant randomised trials.
   Evidence obtained from at least one properly-
    designed randomised controlled trial.
   Evidence from well-controlled trials that are not
    randomised; or well-designed cohort or case-control
    studies; or multiple time series (with or without the
    intervention).
   Opinions of respected authorities; based on clinical
    experience; descriptive studies; or reports of expert
    committees.
      Levels of evidence for
    anecdote-based medicine

•   Level I: Bearded old professor
•   Level II: Doctor with honest face
•   Level III: Researcher with mad stare
•   Level IV: Health service manager with a
    financial crisis
    Benefits of randomisation

• Minimises confounding - known and
  unknown potential confounders that
  influence outcome are evenly distributed
  between study groups
  – reduces bias
  – guarantees treatment assignment will not be
    based on patients’ prognosis
  Different effects of beta-carotene
  intake in cohort studies and trials




Source: Egger and Davey Smith BMJ 1998; 316 : 140
            Bias in RCTs
Bias = systematic deviation from the truth
Can underestimate or overestimate
  effects of an intervention
• Selection/ allocation
• Ascertainment/ loss to follow-up
• Non-compliance
• Publication
             Selection bias and
            generalisibility of trials
• older adults, women and ethnic minorities often
  under-represented in RCTs
• RCTs are often performed in highly selected
  patient populations, eg those with typical
  features of a disease, without co-morbidities or
  those most likely to respond to the intervention
• A median of 4% of participants with current
  asthma (range 0–36%) met the eligibility criteria
  for 17 major asthma RCTs

Travers et al Thorax 2007;62:219-223
  Comparison of trial and Lothian
  population based register data
             Year   Age Duration   HbA1c
                    (yrs) (yrs)     (%)
 UKPDS       1998    53   <1yr      7.1

Lothian T2   2008   62    <1yr      7.3



ACCORD       2008   62     10       8.3

Lothian T2   2008   68     10       7.6
        Ascertainment bias
     Bias from loss to follow-up
• Occurs if people in one arm of trial are
  reviewed more frequently and outcomes
  are identified earlier and/or more
  frequently
• Can result in lead time bias (ie apparent
  increase in survival following earlier
  diagnosis in one group)
• Differences in completeness of follow-up
  between arms of trials may bias results
          Non-compliance
     Efficacy vs effectiveness
• Not all people will use treatment as
  allocated
• May be differences between those that
  continue with allocated treatment and
  those that don’t
• Exclusion of those who are not treated as
  planned introduces bias
• Intention-to-treat analyses used to
  preserve randomisation and reduce bias
    Effect of non-compliance
• Non-compliance decreases power of study
• Non-compliers differ from compliers eg in
  Physicians Health Study poor adherence
  (taking < 50% of study tablets) was
  associated with cigarette smoking, obesity,
  lack of exercise, and history of angina
• In the placebo group better adherence was
  strongly associated with decreased risk of
  death
       Publication bias – funnel plots
        ACEI/ ARB & risk of T2DM




Source: Gillespie et al Diabetes Care 2005; 28 : 2261-2266
     Maintaining randomisation
• Principle 1 (Intention to treat)
   – Once a patient is randomised, his or her data should
     be analysed in the group randomised to - even if they
     discontinue, never receive treatment, or crossover.


• Principle 2 (adequate follow-up)
   – “5-and-20 rule of thumb”
   – 5% probably leads to little bias
   – >20% poses serious threats to validity
        Advantages of RCTs
• Provide strongest and most direct
  epidemiologic evidence for causality

  BUT
• Non-blinded RCTs may overestimate
  treatment effects eg estimates of effect
  from trials with inadequately concealed
  allocation have been 40% larger than
  clinical trials with adequately concealed
  random allocation
      Disadvantages of RCTs
• More difficult to design and conduct than
  observational studies
  – ethical issues
  – feasibility
  – costs
• Still some risk of bias and generalisibility
  often limited
• Not suitable for all research questions
          Limitations of trial design
 Trials may be
 • Unnecessary eg very effective intervention and
   confounding unlikely to explain effects (eg
   insulin for T1DM)
 • Inappropriate eg measurement of infrequent
   adverse outcomes, distant events
 • Impossible eg ethical issues if outcome harmful,
   widespread use of intervention, size of task
 • Inadequate eg limited generalisibility – patients,
   staff , care not representative

Source: Black N et al BMJ 1996; 312 : 1215
        Checking trial quality
            CONSORT
• In 1996, a group of clinical epidemiologists,
  biostatisticians, and journal editors published
  a statement called Consolidation of the
  Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)
• Aimed to improve the standard of written
  reports of RCTs
• Includes a checklist of 25 items and a flow
  diagram
• Revised statement produced 2010: see
  http://www.consort-statement.org
    Advantages of observational
        studies over trials
• Cheaper
• Larger numbers
• Longer follow-up
• Likely to be more generalisable because
  include more representative sample of
  population (or whole population)
• Take place in normal health care settings
• Efficient use of available data
  Disadvantages of observational
     studies compared to trials

• Non-randomised allocation to exposure of
  interest so strong likelihood of bias and
  confounding
• Data more likely to be incomplete and of
  poorer quality
• Outcomes less likely to be validated
 Comparison of trials and primary
      care database data

                                            No adjustment for confounding


                                            Adjustment for available confounders




Source: Tannen RL et al BMJ 2009; 338:b81
     Attempting to reduce bias in
         observational studies
• Adjusting for non-confounders

• Propensity matching - considers and
  adjusts for the likelihood of a patient
  receiving one treatment rather than the
  other based on a number of pre-treatment
  factors.

• Effective for some cases, but not all
   Specific problems with meta-
  analysis of observational studies
• Confounding and selection bias often
  distort the findings from observational
  studies and there is a danger that meta-
  analyses of observational data produce
  very precise but equally spurious results

• See beta carotene example


Source: Egger and Davey Smith BMJ 1998; 316 : 140
  Different effects of beta-carotene
  intake in cohort studies and trials




Source: Egger and Davey Smith BMJ 1998; 316 : 140
  Quality of observational studies
              STROBE
• STROBE stands for an international,
  collaborative initiative of epidemiologists,
  methodologists, statisticians, researchers
  and journal editors involved in the conduct
  and dissemination of observational
  studies, with the common aim of
  STrengthening the Reporting of
  OBservational studies in Epidemiology.
• www.strobe-statement.org
  Examples of use of observational
               data




Source: Brownstein JS et al Diabetes Care 2010 ; 33 : 526-531
  Metformin and cancer incidence
 • After adjusting for sex, age, BMI, A1C, deprivation,
   smoking, and other drug use HR for cancer incidence
   0.63 (0.53–0.75) among 4,085 Scottish metformin users
   with 297 cancers compared with 4,085 non-metformin
   users with 474 cancers, median times to cancer of 3.5
   and 2.6 years,

 • After adjusting for comorbidity, glargine and total insulin
   doses, exposure to metformin among people with type 2
   diabetes treated with insulin, was associated with
   reduced incidence of cancer (OR 0.46 [0.25-0.85]
   (Italian n=112, N=1340, FU 76 months)

Sources: Libby et al Diabetes Care 2009; 32:1620-1625
Monami et al Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1287-1290
 Metformin and cancer mortality
• In patients taking metformin compared
  with patients not taking metformin at
  baseline, the adjusted HR for cancer
  mortality 0.43 (95% CI 0.23–0.80) (Dutch
  n=122, N=1353, FU 9.6 yrs).

• Cancer mortality in MF users similar to
  general population

 Source: Landman GWD et al Diabetes Care 2010; 33:322-326
  Diabetes Rx and cancer incidence
Retrospective cohort study of 62,809 people in the UK who
developed diabetes >40 years of age, treated after 2000.
2106 people developed cancer

HR compared to MF monotherapy
• 1.08 (0.96-1.21) for MF+SU
• 1.36 (1.19-1.54) for SU monotherapy
• 1.42 (1.27-1.60) for insulin

HR compared to insulin and no MF
• 0.54 (0.43-0.66) for insulin +MF

HR compared to untreated DM
• 0.90 (0.79-1.03) for MF
Source: Currie et al Diabetologia 2009;52:1766-1777
    Diabetes Rx and cancer mortality
  • 10,309 new users for >1 year of metformin (MF) or
     sulfonylureas (SU) 1991-1996 with an average follow-up
     of 5.4 ± 1.9 years (means ± SD) identified from
     Saskatchewan Health administrative databases. Mean
     age 63.4 ± 13.3 years, 55% men.
  • Cancer mortality over follow-up was 4.9% (162 of 3,340)
     for SU monotherapy users, 3.5% (245 of 6,969) for MF
     users, and 5.8% (84 of 1,443) for insulin users
  After adjustment for age, sex, insulin use, co-morbidity HR
     for cancer mortality compared with the MF cohort
  • 1.3 [95% CI 1.1–1.6]; P = 0.012) for SU users
  • 1.9 (95% CI 1.5–2.4; P < 0.0001) for insulin users



Source: Bowker et al Diabetes Care 2006: 29; 254-8
Were metformin users different?
• Scottish study: MF users younger, more likely to be
  never smokers, higher BMI, higher HbA1c, less likely to
  use insulin, more likely to use SU than comparison group
• Dutch: MF users shorter duration of DM, higher BMI,
  higher CV risk, lower insulin and SU use than non-MF
  users
• UK: MF users younger, more likely to be female, shortest
  duration of diabetes, heavier, higher cholesterol, lower
  HbA1c, lower co-morbidity (CVD and cancer)
• Canadian: SU users older with more men, MF users
  younger, more likely to be female, longer duration of
  treatment and more likely to receive insulin
                 Trials in progress
• ENERGY: weight loss intervention to
  improve quality of life and reduce risk of
  recurrence for women with early stage
  breast cancer
• Phase III Randomized Trial of Metformin
  Versus Placebo on Recurrence and
  Survival in Early Stage Breast Cancer


 Sources: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01112839
 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01101438
Received: 29 Aug 2008
Accepted: 26 May 2009
Published online: 30 Jun 2009




Received: 5 Jun 2009
Accepted: 24 Jun 2009
Published online: 15 Jul 2009




Received: 26 May 2009
Accepted: 18 Jun 2009
Published online: 9 Jul 2009




Received: 19 May 2009
Accepted: 18 Jun 2009
Published online: 2 Jul 2009
                 Glargine and cancer –
                  observational data
                   Published Diabetologia Sept, 2009

Study                       All cancer                     Breast cancer

Hemkens et al.        Unadj.: no difference                 Not reported
                     Dose adj.: increased risk
Jonasson et al.            No difference                 Increased risk
                                                    (only for glargine alone)
Colhoun et al.     Increased risk in fixed cohort      Increased risk (only for
                   and transition study (glargine      glargine alone) in fixed
                   alone but not glargine + other        and incident groups,
                              insulin);                  non-sig. increase in
                    No effect in incident cohort;          transition cohort
Currie et al.              No difference                   No difference
    What do these studies tell us?
• Possible association between insulin and cancer
• Metformin appears to offer protection
• Long acting insulin analogue therapy associated with
  cancer in some studies
• Short timescale suggests effect on cancer progression

• Retrospective cohort studies are difficult to interpret
  accurately
    – effect of confounders
    – reverse causation
    – allocation bias/ confounding by indication
    – dose information rarely available
 Further considerations for glargine
              papers
• Small numbers (25 and 6 breast Ca in Swedish and
  Scottish studies respectively)
• No association between glargine and breast cancer
  mortality in Swedish study
• No association for glargine with other malignancy
• Glargine exposure with other insulins not associated with
  malignancy
• In Scottish study glargine alone users were older, more
  likely to have T2, be on OHAs, have high BP, higher
  HbA1c, had shorter duration of DM than other insulin
  users.Significant effect of confounders – crude HR for all
  cancers 2.6 and adjusted HR 1.7
• No adjustment for dose or duration of insulin use
       Factors influencing diabetes
      treatment/ cancer association
• Reverse causality – early symptoms of cancer may
  influence treatment of diabetes
• Obesity: BMI/ adiposity/ fat distribution – MF more likley
  to be used in overweight/obese but weight increases
  with SU and insulin
• Glycaemic control
• Duration of diabetes and use of insulin

•   Smoking
•   Diet including alcohol
•   Physical activity
•   Socio-economic status
•   Ethnicity
•   Reproductive history
•   Cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy)
       Incident Cancers in Large Randomized
             Trials of Glucose Lowering.




Gerstein, H. C. JAMA 2010;303:446-447
     Intensive glycaemic control trials
      and cancer risk – meta-analysis
  • 222 Ca deaths in 53,892 person-years among
     intensively treated group and 155 Ca deaths in 38,743
     person-years among usual care group
  • Risk ratios for cancer mortality:
    1.00 (95% CI 0.81-1.24) for all
    1.03 (95% CI 0.83-1.29) if exclude UKPDS MF

  • 357 incident Ca in 47,974 person-years among
    intensively treated group and 380 events in 45,009
    person-years in control arm
  • Risk ratio for cancer incidence: 0.91 (95% CI 0.79-1.05)


Source: Johnson et al Diabetologia. 2011 Jan;54(1):25-31
Mean weight increases in trials of
  intensive therapy to achieve
       glycaemic control
                       Mean weight difference in intensive
        Trial          therapy     group     compared   to     Statistical
   (duration)          standard         therapy      group     significance
                       (detail of weight comparison)
      ACCORD
                       3.1 kg (greater mean weight gain)       p<0.001
   (3 years)
     ADVANCE
                       0.7 kg (greater mean weight during
   (median   5                                                 p<0.001
                       study)
   years)
   UKPDS         33
   (median       10    2.9 kg (greater mean weight gain)       p<0.001
   years)
   UKPDS         34
                       Not     specified     (metformin    v
   (median      10.7                                           NS
                       conventional therapy)
   years)
       VADT
   (median  5.6        4 kg (higher weight at follow up)       p=0.01
   years)
       Aetiology of diabetes and cancer
                               Environment



  Obesity                Hyperinsulinaemia
                                 Poor control

                                                         Treatment
                                  Treatment     Cancer               Death
  Insulin           Diabetes
  resistance
                                 Good control
Beta cell failure



                                 Genes
                     Summary
• Well conducted RCTs are the optimum study
  design to test beneficial effects of treatment in a
  selected populations because they have the
  lowest risk of bias and confounding
• Observational studies have a role to play in
   – generating hypotheses
   – investigating drug effectiveness in real world
   – describing rare, adverse outcomes in large
     populations
BUT role of bias and confounding should be
 considered in the interpretation of findings
                  Further reading
• A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of
  published observational studies Thompson S et al Int. J. Epidemiol.
  (2010) doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq248

• Advancing the Science for Active Surveillance: Rationale and
  Design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Annals
  of Internal Medicine 2010 153:600-606

• When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?
  Vandenbroucke JP. Lancet. 2004;363:1728-31.

• Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by
  appropriately designed clinical trials Freemantle and Strack J Clin
  Epi 2010 63:1053-1058

• Commentaries on glargine papers eg Gale and Smith (Diabetologia
  2009) Smeeth and Pocock (Lancet 2009)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:24
posted:11/8/2011
language:English
pages:43