British journal of clinical pharmacology
-
Br J Clin Pharmacol · Oct 2021
ReviewVariations in Long-term Opioid Therapy Definitions: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Using Routinely Collected Data (2000-2019).
Routinely collected data have been increasingly used to assess long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) patterns, with very little guidance on how to measure LTOT from these data sources. We conducted a systematic review of studies published between January 2000 and July 2019 to catalogue LTOT definitions, the rationale for definitions and LTOT rates in observational research using routinely collected data in nonsurgical settings. We screened 4056 abstracts, 210 full-text manuscripts and included 128 studies, mostly from the United States (81%) and published between 2015 and 2019 (69%). ⋯ Rates of LTOT within study populations ranged from 0.2% to 57% according to study design and definition used. We observed a substantial rise in the last 5 years in studies evaluating LTOT with large variability in the definitions used and poor reporting of the rationale and implementation of definitions. This variation impacts on research reproducibility, comparability of findings and the development of strategies aiming to curb therapy that is not guideline-recommended.
-
Br J Clin Pharmacol · Oct 2021
ReviewVariations in Long-term Opioid Therapy Definitions: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Using Routinely Collected Data (2000-2019).
Routinely collected data have been increasingly used to assess long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) patterns, with very little guidance on how to measure LTOT from these data sources. We conducted a systematic review of studies published between January 2000 and July 2019 to catalogue LTOT definitions, the rationale for definitions and LTOT rates in observational research using routinely collected data in nonsurgical settings. We screened 4056 abstracts, 210 full-text manuscripts and included 128 studies, mostly from the United States (81%) and published between 2015 and 2019 (69%). ⋯ Rates of LTOT within study populations ranged from 0.2% to 57% according to study design and definition used. We observed a substantial rise in the last 5 years in studies evaluating LTOT with large variability in the definitions used and poor reporting of the rationale and implementation of definitions. This variation impacts on research reproducibility, comparability of findings and the development of strategies aiming to curb therapy that is not guideline-recommended.
-
Br J Clin Pharmacol · Aug 2021
ReviewEfficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Inflammation plays a central role in the pathogenesis and clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis. Randomized controlled trials have investigated the potential benefit of colchicine in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but produced conflicting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with CAD. ⋯ Colchicine reduced CV events and inflammatory markers, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and IL-6, in patients with coronary disease compared to controls. Its impact on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality requires further investigation.
-
Br J Clin Pharmacol · Jul 2021
ReviewSubgroup analysis in haematologic malignancies phase III clinical trials: A systematic review.
To assess the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analysis in haematology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). ⋯ The subgroup claims reported in haematology RCTs lack credibility, even when the claims are strong. Information about subgroup difference should be interpreted cautiously.
-
Br J Clin Pharmacol · Jul 2021
ReviewSubgroup analysis in haematologic malignancies phase III clinical trials: A systematic review.
To assess the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analysis in haematology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). ⋯ The subgroup claims reported in haematology RCTs lack credibility, even when the claims are strong. Information about subgroup difference should be interpreted cautiously.