Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T14:49:05.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rational Use of Therapeutic Drugs in the 21st Century: Important Lessons from Cumulative Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Joseph Lau  and
Thomas C. Chalmers
Joseph Lau
Affiliation:
New England Medical Center
Thomas C. Chalmers
Affiliation:
MetaWorks, Inc.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of randomized control trials to assess the usefulness of therapeutic drugs over the last half century has brought significant benefits to patient care. The full potential benefits, however, have been only partially fulfilled because available data are frequently poorly used. Meta-analysis has emerged as an important tool for combining clinical evidence. Several examples are presented that compared the results of cumulative meta-analysis of randomized control trials with clinical expert recommendations. These comparisons demonstrated that clinical expert recommendations are often not synchronized with accumulating evidence, and this lack of recognition often resulted in delays in the acceptance of effective drugs and the slow abandonment of possibly harmful therapeutic practices. The problems of inappropriate therapeutic drug use will only intensify as new drugs are introduced and new uses for established drugs are proposed. The rational use of therapeutic drugs can be achieved only through the routine use of meta-analysis on high-quality clinical data. Some suggestions are made to improve the quality of the original research and the ways of assembling meta-analyses and disseminating their results.

Type
Special Section: The Rational Use of Therapeutic Drugs
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 509 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Antman, E. M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., et al. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268, 240–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Baum, M. L., Anish, D. S., Chalmers, T. C., et al. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: Evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 305, 795–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bernstein, F.The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature: Manual versus MEDLARS searches. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1988, 9, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
5.Chalmers, I., Hetherington, J., Elbourne, D., et al. Materials and methods used in synthesizing evidence to evaluate the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, vol. 1: Pregnancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, 321–28.Google Scholar
6.Chalmers, T. C., & Lau, J.Meta-analysis stimulus for changes in clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1993, 2, 161–72.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Chalmers, T. C., Matta, R. J., Smith, H. Jr., & Kunzler, A. M.Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 297, 1091–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Covell, D. G., Uman, G. C., & Manning, P. R.Information needs in office practice: Are they being met? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1985, 103, 596–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Diabetes Control and Complication Trial (DCCT) Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329, 977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Dickersin, K., Hewitt, P., Mutch, L., Chalmers, I., & Chalmers, T. C.Perusing the literature: Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal clinical trials database. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 306–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Fallon, W. F., & Wears, R. L.Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of infectious complications including empyema following tube thoracostomy for trauma: Results of meta-analysis. Journal of Trauma, 1992, 33, 110–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardio (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet, 1986, 1, 397–402.Google Scholar
13.Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardio (GISSI-2). A factorial randomised trial of altepase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12,490 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Lancet, 1990, 336, 65–71.Google Scholar
14.Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardio (GISSI-3). Effects of lisinopril and transdermal glycerol trinitrate singly and together on 6-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet, 1994, 343, 1115–22.Google Scholar
15.The GUSTO investigators. An international randomized control trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329, 1615–22.Google Scholar
16.Hampton, J. R., & Skene, A. M.Beyond the mega-trial: Certainty and uncertainty. British Heart Journal, 1992, 68, 352–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet, 1988, 2, 349–60.Google Scholar
18.ISIS-3 (Third International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. ISIS-3: A randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41,299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet, 1992, 339, 753–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.ISIS-4 Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: A randomized factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulfate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet, 1995, 345, 669–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kirplani, H., Schmidt, B., McGibbon, K. A., et al. Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. Pediatrics, 1989, 83, 543–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Kreter, B., & Woods, M.Antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiothoracic operations. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1992, 104, 590–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Langley, J. M., LeBlanc, J. C., Drake, J., & Milner, R.Efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis in placement of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: A meta-analysis. Clinical Infectious Disease, 1993, 17, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Lau, J., Antman, E., Jimenez-Silva, J., et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 1992, 327, 248–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Lau, J., Schmid, C. H., & Chalmers, T. C.Cumulative meta-analysis builds evidence for exemplary medical care. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995, 48, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Meijer, W. S., Schmitz, P. I. M., & Jeekel, J.Meta-analysis of randomised, controlled clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in biliary tract surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 1990, 77, 283–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Mittendorf, R., Aronson, M. P., Berry, R. E., et al. Avoiding serious infections associated with abdominal hysterectomy: A meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1993, 169, 1119–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Poynard, T., & Conn, H. O.The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985, 6, 271–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 450–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Scherer, R., Dickersin, K., & Langenberg, P.Full publication of results initially presented in abstract: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1994, 272, 158–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Stampfer, M. J., Goldhaber, S. Z., Yusuf, S., Peto, R., & Hennekens, C. H.Effect of intravenous streptokinase on acute myocardial infarction: Pooled results from randomized trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1180–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Topol, E. J., & Califf, R. M.Answers to complex questions cannot be derived from ‘simple’ trials. British Heart Journal, 1992, 68, 348–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Velanovich, V.A meta-analysis of prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1991, 87, 429–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Wang, P. H., Lau, J., & Chalmers, T. C.Meta-analysis of effects of intensive bloodglucose control on late complications of type I diabetes. Lancet, 1993, 341, 1306–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Warren, K. S., & Mosteller, F. (eds.), Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1994, 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Woods, K. L., & Fletcher, S.Long-term outcome after intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: The second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2). Lancet, 1993, 343, 816–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Woods, K., Fletcher, S., Roffe, C., & Haider, Y.Intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: Results of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2). Lancet, 1992, 339, 1553–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Yusuf, S., Collins, R., Peto, R., et al. Intravenous and intracoronary fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: Overview of results on mortality, reinfarction and side-effects from 33 randomized controlled trials. European Heart Journal, 1985, 6, 556–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed