Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses.

Evidence on how much medical interventions work may change over time. It is important to determine what fluctuations in the treatment effect reported by randomized trials and their metaanalyses may be expected and whether extreme fluctuations signal future major changes. We applied recursive cumulative metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the relative change in the pooled treatment effect (odds ratio) over time for 60 interventions in two medical fields (pregnancy/perinatal medicine, n = 45 interventions; myocardial infarction, n = 15 interventions). We evaluated the scatter of relative changes for different numbers of total patients in previous trials. Outlier cases were noted with changes greater than 2.5 standard deviations of the expected. With 500 accumulated patients, the pooled odds ratio may change by 0.6- to 1.7-fold in the immediate future. When 2000 patients have already been randomized, the respective figures are between 0.74- and 1.35-fold for pregnancy/perinatal medicine and between 0.83- and 1.21-fold for myocardial infarction studies. Extreme early fluctuations in the treatment effect were observed in three interventions (magnesium in myocardial infarction, calcium and antiplatelet agents for prevention of preeclampsia), where recent mega-trials have contradicted prior metaanalyses, as well as in four other examples where early large treatment effects were dissipated when more data appeared. Past experience may help quantify the uncertainty surrounding the treatment effects reported in early clinical trials and their metaanalyses. Early wide oscillations in the evolution of the treatment effect for specific interventions may sometimes signal further major changes in the future.

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

[2]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. , 1992, BMJ.

[4]  S. Fletcher,et al.  Intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: results of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2) , 1992, The Lancet.

[5]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  S. Goodman,et al.  p values, hypothesis tests, and likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate. , 1993, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Jeffrey R. Wilson,et al.  CLASP: a randomised trial of low-dose aspirin for the prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia among 9364 pregnant women , 1994, The Lancet.

[8]  E. Antman Randomized trials of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction: big numbers do not tell the whole story. , 1995, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  Raymond C. Schneider,et al.  ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction , 1995, The Lancet.

[10]  C H Schmid,et al.  Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  K. Woods Mega-trials and management of acute myocardial infarction , 1995, The Lancet.

[12]  P. Ridker,et al.  Discordance between Meta-analyses and Large-Scale Randomized, Controlled Trials: Examples from the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction , 1995, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  A Ohlsson,et al.  Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  C H Schmid,et al.  Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials : How do their results compare ? , 1996 .

[15]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[16]  T C Chalmers,et al.  Changes in clinical trials mandated by the advent of meta-analysis. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  G A Colditz,et al.  Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). , 1996, Annual review of public health.

[18]  J. Cutler,et al.  Trial of calcium to prevent preeclampsia. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. Bailar The promise and problems of meta-analysis. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  C D Naylor,et al.  Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research , 1997, BMJ.

[21]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  G. Grégoire,et al.  Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  J. Lau,et al.  The impact of high-risk patients on the results of clinical trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[25]  C H Schmid,et al.  An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  Christopher H Schmid,et al.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough , 1998, The Lancet.

[27]  J. Ioannidis Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[28]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randomized evidence from group and individual patient data. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  R. Horton,et al.  Time to register randomised trials , 1999, The Lancet.