Meta-analysis of incidence of rare events

This is a review of methods for the meta-analysis of incidence of rare events using summary-level data. It is motivated and illustrated by the dataset used in a published analysis of cardiovascular safety in rosiglitazone trials. This review compares available methods for binary data, considering risk-difference, relative-risk and odds-ratio scales, fixed-effect and random-effects models, and frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Particular issues in this dataset include low incidence rates, the occurrence of studies with no events under one or all treatments, and discrepancy among results achieved using different statistical methodologies. The common method of adding a correction factor to handle zeroes may introduce bias where the incidence of events is small, as in this case. Alternative analyses on the log-odds scale are shown to give similar results, but the choice between them is less important than the potential sources of bias in any meta-analysis arising from limitations in the underlying dataset. It is important to present results carefully, including numerical and graphical summaries on the natural scale of risk when the analysis is on a statistically appropriate scale such as log-odds: the incidence rates should accompany an estimated ratio (of odds or risk) to put the analysis into the proper context. Beyond the statistical methodologies which are the focus of this paper, this dataset highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of the data being combined. Because the rosiglitazone dataset contains clinically heterogeneous trials with low event rates that were not designed or intended to assess cardiovascular outcomes, the findings of any meta-analysis of such trials should be considered hypothesis-generating.

[1]  I. Dahabreh Meta-analysis of rare events: an update and sensitivity analysis of cardiovascular events in randomized trials of rosiglitazone , 2008, Clinical trials.

[2]  J. Beyene,et al.  Rosiglitazone: can meta-analysis accurately estimate excess cardiovascular risk given the available data? Re-analysis of randomized trials using various methodologic approaches , 2009, BMC Research Notes.

[3]  Jonathan J. Shuster,et al.  Fixed vs random effects meta‐analysis in rare event studies: The Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  J. Gart,et al.  On the bias of various estimators of the logit and its variance with application to quantal bioassay. , 1967, Biometrika.

[5]  R. T. Birge,et al.  The Calculation of Errors by the Method of Least Squares , 1932 .

[6]  S. Nissen,et al.  Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Tianxi Cai,et al.  Meta‐analysis for rare events , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Statistical algorithms in Review Manager , 2010 .

[9]  G. Gensini,et al.  Cardiac safety profile of rosiglitazone: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. , 2010, International Journal of Cardiology.

[10]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  S Greenland,et al.  Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  J. Leahy Uncertain Effects of Rosiglitazone on the Risk for Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Death , 2008 .

[13]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Meta-analysis of rare and adverse event data , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[14]  Lu Tian,et al.  Exact and efficient inference procedure for meta-analysis and its application to the analysis of independent 2 x 2 tables with all available data but without artificial continuity correction. , 2009, Biostatistics.

[15]  R. Peto,et al.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. , 1985, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[16]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[17]  J M Robins,et al.  Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. , 1985, Biometrics.

[18]  Peter W Lane,et al.  Graphical approaches to the analysis of safety data from clinical trials , 2008, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[19]  Alexander J Sutton,et al.  What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  S Greenland,et al.  A general estimator for the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio. , 1986, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  C D Naylor,et al.  Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. , 1989, The Journal of rheumatology.

[22]  S. Nissen,et al.  Rosiglitazone revisited: an updated meta-analysis of risk for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[23]  P. W. Lane,et al.  Analysis of covariance and standardization as instances of prediction. , 1982, Biometrics.

[24]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta‐analytical methods with rare events , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  C. Blyth On Simpson's Paradox and the Sure-Thing Principle , 1972 .

[26]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  Lisa A. Weissfeld,et al.  An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in meta-analysis , 1996 .