0
Letters |

Biologic Therapies for Chronic Plaque Psoriasis and Cardiovascular Events

Thrasivoulos Tzellos, MD, MSc; Athanassios Kyrgidis, MD, MSc; Konstantinos Toulis, MD, MSc
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (akyrgidi@gmail.com).


JAMA. 2011;306(19):2095-2096. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1660
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: The meta-analysis by Dr Ryan and colleagues examining the association between biologic therapies for chronic plaque psoriasis and cardiovascular events reported no significant difference in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving biologic therapies vs placebo.1 The rosiglitazone example demonstrated that single trials can be underpowered to provide conclusive evidence regarding rare cardiovascular events and meta-analyses can improve power.2 For meta-analyses, availability of high-quality data on harms and selection of the most appropriate analytical methods are essential.2 Specific concerns are raised about the validity of the findings by Ryan et al.

The authors used Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects methods with absolute risk differences as the effect measure.1 Bradburn et al,3 after evaluating performance of 12 methods for pooling rare events, found that many of the most commonly used meta-analytical methods were biased and suboptimal in performance and gave misleading results. They concluded that for event rates below 1%, the Peto 1-step odds ratio method was the least biased and most powerful method and that bias was greater when the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio method was used.3 Fixed-effects models assume that included studies share a common true effect size. Because random-effects models assume that studies were drawn from populations that differ from each other in ways that could influence the treatment effect, they are more appropriate in meta-analyses of trials studying different treatments. Also meta-analytical methods that calculate risk differences tend to show conservative confidence interval coverage and low statistical power.3 Because neither Peto odds ratio nor random-effects Mantel-Haenszel methods, which would be the most appropriate statistical methods, were used, the results of the study by Ryan et al1 might be misleading.

The authors pointed out that high-quality data on harms were not available. Conduct of included studies with decreased vigilance for adverse cardiac events, failure to report serious adverse events in included studies, and the short duration of placebo-controlled phases may have further compromised results of the meta-analysis.

Since cardiovascular events are uncommon and long-term outcomes, a meta-analysis of observational studies following Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines4 could be important in detecting underestimation or overestimation of the effect and identifying critical information for efficient design of future randomized controlled trials, such as high-risk subgroups.5

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

REFERENCES

Ryan C, Leonardi CL, Krueger JG,  et al.  Association between biologic therapies for chronic plaque psoriasis and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.  JAMA. 2011;306(8):864-871
PubMed
Hernandez AV, Walker E, Ioannidis JP, Kattan MW. Challenges in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for rare harmful cardiovascular events: the case of rosiglitazone.  Am Heart J. 2008;156(1):23-30
PubMed
Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.  Stat Med. 2007;26(1):53-77
PubMed
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012
PubMed
McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cyclooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and nonselective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2.  JAMA. 2006;296(13):1633-1644
PubMed

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Ryan C, Leonardi CL, Krueger JG,  et al.  Association between biologic therapies for chronic plaque psoriasis and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.  JAMA. 2011;306(8):864-871
PubMed
Hernandez AV, Walker E, Ioannidis JP, Kattan MW. Challenges in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for rare harmful cardiovascular events: the case of rosiglitazone.  Am Heart J. 2008;156(1):23-30
PubMed
Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events.  Stat Med. 2007;26(1):53-77
PubMed
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.  JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012
PubMed
McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cyclooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and nonselective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2.  JAMA. 2006;296(13):1633-1644
PubMed
November 16, 2011
Caitriona Ryan, MB, BAO, BCh; Yahya Daoud, MA; Alan Menter, MD
JAMA. 2011;306(19):2095-2096. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1661.
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.