Elliott M. Antman

Bio: Elliott M. Antman is an academic researcher from Brigham and Women's Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Myocardial infarction & TIMI. The author has an hindex of 161, co-authored 716 publications receiving 179462 citations. Previous affiliations of Elliott M. Antman include Duke University & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract: The practice of cardiology is increasingly driven by evidence-based medicine centering around the results of clinical trials.1 In this inaugural article of Clinical Cardiology: Physician Update , I will focus on the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine. Armed with the tools described herein, clinicians will be better equipped to understand and synthesize the results of the multitude of clinical trials appearing in the cardiology literature. A major goal of this effort is to shorten the delay between the publication of trial results and the translation of their findings into clinical practice. Trials of new therapies in cardiology typically compare the new treatment to a control. The control group receives the treatment against which the test intervention is being compared. Control and test treatments must be both medically justifiable and compatible with the healthcare needs of study patients. Either treatment must be acceptable to study patients and to the physicians administering them; there must be a reasonable doubt regarding the efficacy of the test treatment; and there should be reason to believe that the benefits will outweigh the risks of treatment. When the control treatment is a placebo, the trial is referred to as a placebo-controlled trial.2 Given the burgeoning supply of new treatments in the cardiovascular armamentarium, more and more trials compare the test therapy to a standard therapy. This is referred to as an active controlled trial.3 4 Randomized controlled trials typically involve the randomization of patients to either the control or test treatment (ie, randomized concurrent control). These trials are the gold standard for evaluating new therapies, and they form the foundation for the highest level of recommendations in practice guideline documents that stress evidence-based medicine5 (Figure 1⇓). Randomization has 3 important influences that explain why it is …

Genetic profiling of fatty acid desaturase polymorphisms identifies patients who may benefit from high-dose omega-3 fatty acids in cardiac remodeling after acute myocardial infarction—Post-hoc analysis from the OMEGA-REMODEL randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Background The double-blind OMEGA-REMODEL placebo-controlled randomized trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids (O-3FA) post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reported improved cardiac remodeling and attenuation of non-infarct myocardial fibrosis. Fatty acid desaturase 2 (FADS2) gene cluster encodes key enzymes in the conversion of essential omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids into active arachidonic (ArA) and eicosapentaenoic acids (EPA), which influence cardiovascular outcomes. Methods and results We tested the hypothesis that the genotypic status of FADS2 (rs1535) modifies therapeutic response of O-3FA in post-AMI cardiac remodeling in 312 patients. Consistent with known genetic polymorphism of FADS2, patients in our cohort with the guanine-guanine (GG) genotype had the lowest FADS2 activity assessed by arachidonic acid/linoleic acid (ArA/LA) ratio, compared with patients with the adenine-adenine (AA) and adenine-guanine (AG) genotypes (GG:1.62±0.35 vs. AA: 2.01±0.36, p<0.0001; vs. AG: 1.76±0.35, p = 0.03). When randomized to 6-months of O-3FA treatment, GG patients demonstrated significant lowering of LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi), N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and galectin-3 levels compared to placebo (-4.4 vs. 1.2 ml/m2, -733 vs. -181 pg/mL, and -2.0 vs. 0.5 ng/mL; p = 0.006, 0.006, and 0.03, respectively). In contrast, patients with either AA or AG genotype did not demonstrate significant lowering of LVESVi, NT-proBNP, or galectin-3 levels from O-3FA treatment, compared to placebo. The odds ratios for improving LVESVi by 10% with O-3FA treatment was 7.2, 1.6, and 1.2 in patients with GG, AG, and AA genotypes, respectively. Conclusion Genetic profiling using FADS2 genotype can predict the therapeutic benefits of O-3FA treatment against adverse cardiac remodeling during the convalescent phase of AMI. Clinical trial registration information clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00729430.

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

Abstract: "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.