Search

Objective: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding exercise to usual care for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease., Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials., Data Sources: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS searched from inception to July 2020., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: We included all randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in participants with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year and language., Outcome and Measures: The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Five independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias in pairs. Our methodology was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Cochrane Risk of Bias-version 1., Results: We included 950 trials, of which 248 trials randomising 21 633 participants reported on our predefined outcomes. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The major types of exercise reported were dynamic aerobic exercise (126/248 trials), dynamic resistance exercise (25/248 trials), and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (58/248 trials). The study participants were included due to cardiovascular diseases (189/248 trials), type 2 diabetes (41/248 trials) or hypertension (16/248 trials). The median intervention period was 3 months (IQR: 2-4 months) and the median follow-up period was 6 months (IQR: 3-8 months) after randomisation. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding exercise to usual care when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93; I 2 =0%, moderate certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88; I 2 =0%, moderate certainty of evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference between trials from different economic regions, type of participants, type of exercise or duration of follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using several different tools, but the results generally showed that exercise improved quality of life, but the effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important difference., Conclusions: A short duration of any type of exercise seems to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in patients with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. Exercise seems to have statistically significant effects on quality of life, but the effect sizes seem minimal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019142313., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure., Design: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure., Information Sources: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021., Data Extraction: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence., Results: We included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of 'cardiac failure' (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), 'hospitalisations' (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and 'ventricular tachycardia' (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=-5.28; 95% CI -6.60 to -3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events., Conclusion and Relevance: High certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Survival analysis is routinely used to assess differences between groups in relapse prevention and treatment discontinuation studies involving people with long-term psychiatric conditions. The actual outcome in survival analysis is 'time to event', yet, in the mental health field, there has been little consideration of whether a temporary delay to relapse is clinically relevant in a condition that can last for decades. Moreover, in psychiatric drug trials, a pattern of elevated early relapses following randomisation to placebo or no treatment is common. This may be the result of the withdrawal of previous treatment leading to physiological withdrawal effects, which may be mistaken for relapse, or genuine relapse precipitated by the process of withdrawal. Such withdrawal effects typically produce converging survival curves eventually. They inevitably lead to differences in time to relapse, even when there is little or no difference in the cumulative risk of relapse at final follow-up. Therefore, statistical tests based on survival analyses can be misleading because they obscure these withdrawal effects. We illustrate these difficulties in a trial of antipsychotic reduction versus maintenance, and a trial of prophylactic esketamine in people with treatment-resistant depression. Both illustrate withdrawal-related effects that underline the importance of long-term follow-up and question the use of tests based on time to event. Further discussion of the most relevant outcome and appropriate approach to analysis, and research on patient and carer preferences is important to inform the design of future trials and interpretation of existing ones., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JM is the chief investigator on an NIHR-funded trial of antipsychotic reduction and co-investigator on an NIHR-funded trial of methods of antidepressant discontinuation. MB and JCJ have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

When analysing and presenting results of randomised clinical trials, trialists rarely report if or how underlying statistical assumptions were validated. To avoid data-driven biased trial results, it should be common practice to prospectively describe the assessments of underlying assumptions. In existing literature, there is no consensus on how trialists should assess and report underlying assumptions for the analyses of randomised clinical trials. With this study, we developed suggestions on how to test and validate underlying assumptions behind logistic regression, linear regression, and Cox regression when analysing results of randomised clinical trials.Two investigators compiled an initial draftbased on a review of the literature. Experienced statisticians and trialists from eight different research centres and trial units then participated in a anonymised consensus process, where we reached agreement on the suggestions presented in this paper.This paper provides detailed suggestions on 1) which underlying statistical assumptions behind logistic regression, multiple linear regression and Cox regression each should be assessed; 2) how these underlying assumptions may be assessed; and 3) what to do if these assumptions are violated.We believe that the validity of randomised clinical trial results will increase if our recommendations for assessing and dealing with violations of the underlying statistical assumptions are followed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded., Design: Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018., Setting: Trial reports published in World Psychiatry , JAMA Psychiatry , Lancet Psychiatry , American Journal of Psychiatry , British Journal of Psychiatry , or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics ., Main Outcome Measures: Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report., Results: 63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report., Conclusions: Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SS, and FWF receives salaried from the Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark. SJ, JCJ, and CG receives salaries from the Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Disease-related mortality (eg, cardiovascular mortality or breast-cancer mortality) is often used as an outcome in randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews. The rationale why disease-related mortality might be used in addition to, or instead of, all-cause mortality seems to be that disease-related mortality may more readily detect the experimental intervention effects. Disease-related mortality is theoretically what most interventions aim at influencing; disease-related intervention effects are not 'diluted' by events unrelated to the disease that may be occurring in both the experimental group and the control group (eg, traffic accidents). Intervention-effect estimates are indeed theoretically diluted and affected if events unrelated to the disease or the trial interventions are occurring. Although sounding attractive, we will in the present paper consider the several methodological limitations of using disease-related mortality instead of all-cause mortality as an outcome. When mortality is a relevant outcome, we recommend using all-cause mortality as a primary outcome and disease-specific mortality as a secondary or exploratory outcome depending on power., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease., Methods: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life., Results: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results., Conclusion: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018112082., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Major depressive disorder is estimated by the WHO to affect more than 300 million people globally, making depression the leading cause of disability worldwide. Antidepressants are commonly used to treat depression., Objective: The study aimed to provide an update on the evidence on the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo. Should antidepressants be used for adults with major depressive disorder?, Study Selection: We searched the Cochrane Library, BMJ Best Practice and PubMed up to June 2019 with the search terms 'depression' and 'antidepressants' targeting reviews published in English since 1990., Findings: Several reviews have assessed the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo for depression. Generally, all the previous reviews show that antidepressants seem to have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but the size of the effect has questionable importance to most patients. Antidepressants seem to have minimal beneficial effects on depressive symptoms and increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events., Conclusions: The benefits of antidepressants seem to be minimal and possibly without any importance to the average patient with major depressive disorder. Antidepressants should not be used for adults with major depressive disorder before valid evidence has shown that the potential beneficial effects outweigh the harmful effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Irving Kirsch is the author of “The Emperor’s New Drugs” for which he currently receives occasional royalties., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In order to ensure the validity of results of randomised clinical trials and under some circumstances to optimise statistical power, most statistical methods require validation of underlying statistical assumptions. The present paper describes how trialists in major medical journals report tests of underlying statistical assumptions when analysing results of randomised clinical trials. We also consider possible solutions how to improve current practice by adequate reporting of tests of underlying statistical assumptions. We conclude that there is a need to reach consensus on which underlying assumptions should be assessed, how these underlying assumptions should be assessed and what should be done if the underlying assumptions are violated., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To characterise the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery heart disease by means of 'standard predictors' defined as demographic, clinical and biochemical quantities routinely available in general practices and ascertained at an interview not prompted by renewed cardiac complaints., Methods: This is an observational study based on data from 2199 Copenhagen placebo patients from the 'clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary heart disease' trial of patients with stable coronary heart disease. In the trial, we compared the effects of 14 days of clarithromycin treatment versus placebo. The predictors were based on the interview forms and blood samples collected at entry, along with demographic information from hospital files.We studied 'standard predictors' of a composite outcome (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cerebrovascular disease or all-cause death) and of all-cause death. Using Cox regression, we compared predictions of status at 3, 6 and 9 years without and with the use of 'standard predictors' and used receiver operating characteristic statistic., Results: Few 'standard predictors' were associated (p<0.01) with the composite outcome or with all-cause death. When no 'standard predictors' were included, 63.2% of the model-based predictions of the composite outcome and 79.9% of death predictions were correct. Including all 'standard predictors' in the model increased the figures to 68.4% and 83.4%, respectively. C indices were low, except when all-cause death was assessed as a single outcome where C was 0.79., Conclusion: 'Standard predictors' routinely available in general practices contribute only modestly to risk assessment in consecutively sampled patients with stable coronary heart disease as ascertained at a contact not prompted by renewed cardiac complaints. Novel biomarkers may improve the assessment., Trial Registration Number: NCT00121550., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.