PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brent Caldwell

Publications and source records attributed to Brent Caldwell.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

External validity of randomized controlled trials in COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a heterogeneous disease comprising a wide range of clinical phenotypes, depending on the degree to which emphysema, chronic bronchitis, reversible bronchospasm and small airways inflammation are present. Not all of these phenotypes may be represented among the subjects included in randomized controlled drug trials (RCTs) in COPD, making it difficult for doctors to know to what extent RCT evidence applies to individual patients. From a respiratory health survey of adults randomly selected from the community, we have estimated the proportion of subjects with COPD who would have been eligible for inclusion in major COPD RCTs. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to 3500 randomly selected individuals aged 25-75 years. Respondents were invited to complete a detailed respiratory questionnaire and pulmonary function tests. Subjects with COPD defined by post-bronchodilator spirometry were assessed against the eligibility criteria of 18 major RCTs cited in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. FINDINGS: Of 749 subjects completing the full survey, 117 had COPD. Of these, a median of 5% (range 0-20%) of subjects met inclusion criteria for the major RCTs. Of 55 subjects with COPD receiving treatment, 0-9% (median 5%) met inclusion criteria for the major RCTs. INTERPRETATION: The major COPD RCTs on which the GOLD treatment guidelines are based may have limited external validity. Over 90% of the COPD subjects in the community who were taking medication, did so on the basis of RCTs for which they would not have been eligible.

Adult↗

External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of clinical phenotypes, not all of which may be encompassed in the subjects included in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This makes it difficult for clinicians to know to what extent the evidence derived from RCTs applies to a given patient. AIM: To calculate the proportion of individuals with asthma who would have been eligible for the major asthma RCTs from the data of a random community survey of respiratory health. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to 3500 randomly selected individuals aged 25-75 years. Respondents were invited to complete a detailed respiratory questionnaire and pulmonary function testing. Participants with current asthma were assessed against the eligibility criteria of the 17 major asthma RCTs cited in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. FINDINGS: A total of 749 participants completed the full survey, of whom 179 had current asthma. A median 4% of participants with current asthma (range 0-36%) met the eligibility criteria for the included RCTs. A median 6% (range 0-43%) of participants with current asthma on treatment met the eligibility criteria. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that the major asthma RCTs on which the GINA guidelines are based may have limited external validity as they have been performed on highly selected patient populations. Most of the participants with current asthma on treatment in the community would not have been eligible for these RCTs.

Adult↗

Risk of cardiovascular events and celecoxib: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized double-blind clinical trials of celecoxib of at least 6 weeks' duration and presented data on serious cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Data sources included six bibliographic databases, the relevant files of the United States Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical company websites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled fixed effects estimates of the odds ratios for risk of cardiovascular events with celecoxib compared with comparator treatment were calculated using the inverse variance weight method. The main outcome measure was myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Four placebo-controlled trials with 4422 patients were included in the primary meta-analysis comparing celecoxib with placebo. The odds ratio of myocardial infarction with celecoxib compared to placebo was 2.26 (95%confidence interval 1.0 to 5.1). For composite cardiovascular events [odd ratio 1.38 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.10)], cardiovascular deaths [OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.38 to 2.95)] and stroke [OR 1.0(95% CI 0.51 to 1.84)] there was no significant increase in risk with celecoxib. The secondary meta-analysis which included a total of six studies (with placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol as comparators) of 12 780 patients, showed similar findings with a significant increased risk with celecoxib for myocardial infarction [OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.15 to 3.08)] but not other outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The available data indicate an increased risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib therapy, consistent with a class effect for COX-2 specific inhibitors.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗