Showing papers by "Clinical Trial Service Unit published in 1995"

Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and non-fatal myocardial infarction: 14,000 cases and 32,000 controls in the United Kingdom. The International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES--To assess the effects of cigarette smoking on the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, and to compare tar in different types of manufactured cigarettes. METHODS--In the early 1990s responses to a postal questionnaire were obtained from 13,926 survivors of myocardial infarction (cases) recently discharged from hospitals in the United Kingdom and 32,389 of their relatives (controls). Blood had been obtained from cases soon after admission for the index myocardial infarction and was also sought from the controls. 4923 cases and 6880 controls were current smokers of manufactured cigarettes with known tar yields. Almost all tar yields were 7-9 or 12-15 mg/cigarette (mean 7.5 mg for low tar ( or = 10 mg). The cited risk ratios were standardised for age and sex and compared myocardial infarction rates in current cigarette smokers with those in non-smokers who had not smoked cigarettes regularly in the past 10 years. RESULTS--At ages 30-49 the rates of myocardial infarction in smokers were about five times those in non-smokers (as defined); at ages 50-59 they were three times those in non-smokers, and even at ages 60-79 they were twice as great as in non-smokers (risk ratio 6.3, 4.7, 3.1, 2.5, and 1.9 at 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 respectively; each 2P < 0.00001). After standardisation for age, sex, and amount smoked, the rate of non-fatal myocardial infarction was 10.4% (SD 5.4) higher in medium tar than in low tar cigarette smokers (2P = 0.06). This percentage was not significantly greater at ages 30-59 (16.6% (7.1)) than at 60-79 (1.0% (8.5)). In both age ranges the difference in risk between cigarette smokers and non-smokers was much larger than the difference between one type of cigarette and another (risk ratio 3.39 and 3.95 at ages 30-59 for smokers of similar numbers of low and of medium tar cigarettes, and risk ratio 2.35 and 2.37 at ages 60-79). Most possible confounding factors that could be tested for were similar in low and medium tar users, with no significant differences in blood lipid or albumin concentrations. CONCLUSION--The present study indicates that the imminent change of tar yields in the European Union to comply with an upper limit of 12 mg/cigarette will not increase (and may somewhat decrease) the incidence of myocardial infarction, unless they indirectly help perpetuate tobacco use. Even low tar cigarettes still greatly increase rates of myocardial infarction, however, especially among people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, and far more risk is avoided by not smoking than by changing from one type of cigarette to another.

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials: the need for complete data

Abstract: If the relative effectiveness of different treatments that might be used in clinical practice is to be evaluated reliably, it is very important that the evaluation is carried out in an appropriate manner. This is especially true where the differences between treatments are expected to be moderate, and so easily obscured by the play of chance or systematic bias. Although such differences are often of considerable clinical importance, they can be difficult to assess and require a large amount of randomized evidence. This evidence can be obtained through prospective randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis of results from past randomized trials, or ideally a combination of the two, with prospective trials contributing to future meta-analyses. Whichever technique is adopted, all possible biases must be minimized through the collection of as much randomized evidence as possible. In meta-analyses, this is best achieved by ensuring that all relevant trials, and all randomized participants in these trials, are included in the analysis. The gold standard for this might be a meta-analysis of individual patient data, in which details for each participant in every trial are collected and analysed centrally. This approach requires considerable time and effort. However, it will add to the analyses that can be performed and will remove many of the problems associated with a reliance on published data alone and some of the problems that can arise from the use of aggregate data. This paper sets out some of the reasons for this and some of the techniques used for individual patient data-based meta-analysis.

Making randomised trials larger: a simple solution?

Abstract: However, to fully mobilize this workforce, it has to be perceived that the women or consumers themselves have a stake in the clinical trial and that the questions we address and the method of addressing these questions has been scrutinized and perhaps modified by these special interest groups. As an experiment in this direction, I have just established a consumers' advisory group chaired by Mrs Hazel Thornton, a well-known and outspoken advocate of the patients' needs in clinical trials. 8 This new group has been given the task of advising on the design and conduct of a trial of hormone replacement therapy for women with acute or chronic menopausal problems who have been treated for breast cancer in the past. The need for such a trial has been well documented already and yet the ethical dilemma of conducting such a trial is enormous. 9 What better way for such a committee to cut its teeth and to set an agenda for the future. In my opinion, the only way of resolving these dilemmas are for the clinical trial organizations to be perceived as providers and the women themselves as the purchasers. We have the expertise and the scientific methodology to help those women who want to see advances in the prevention and cure of breast cancer. Only by this kind of partnership can we reverse the trend to 'rightism' and protect ourselves from the ill-informed attacks from the self-appointed arm-. chair ethicists.