Systematic review —a tool for the pharmaceutical physician

Original Article
  • 16 Downloads

Summary

A meta-analysis of nine large clinical studies that had looked at a clinical dilemma, which option to use at ‘Step 3 of the British Guidelines on Asthma Management’, was conducted to attempt to determine the better option for adult asthma. All studies had reported results demonstrating superiority of the addition of a long-acting bronchodilator to inhaled corticosteroid for lung function, but, taken singly, none of the studies had sufficient power to provide conclusive evidence on the relative effect of either treatment option on the incidence of asthma exacerbations. However, a carefully conducted meta-analysis of the nine studies was able to provide a conclusive answer to this question. The work was further developed after abstract presentation and subsequently published. This article argues that the pharmaceutical physician is well placed to use this statistical tool more often, but still judiciously, to look at the benefit (or risk) of drugs in development or on the market, and then to act upon that information appropriately.

Keywords

asthma exacerbation inhaled corticosteroids long-acting bronchodilator meta-analysis salmeterol 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was submitted in full to the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine, UK, in March 2001 as a dissertation for full faculty membership. This article represents a summary of the work undertaken and the discussion. The views expressed are those of the author. The author would like to thank Stephen Pyke and Mark Britton for their help with MIASMA and Stuart Dollow, FFPM, for his comments and advice on this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Swales JD. Meta analysis as a guide to clinical practice. J Hypertension 1993; 11 (suppl 5):S59–S63.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cochrane AL. Foreword. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989, p. vii.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marchioli R, Marfisi RM, Carinci F, Tognoni G. Meta-analysis, clinical trials and transferability of research results into practice. (The case of cholesterol-lowering interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary hear disease.) Arch Int Med 1996; 156:1158–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Littenberg B. Aminophylline treatment in severe, acute asthma. A meta-analysis. J Am Med Ass 1988; 259:1678–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oakley-Browne MA, Adams P, Mobberley PM. Interventions for pathological gambling. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD001521.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilson AJ, Gibson PG, Coughlan J. Long acting beta-agonists versus theophylline for maintenance treatment in asthma. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD001281.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ram FSF, Brocklebank DM, White J, Wright J. Pressurised metered dose inhalers versus all other hand-held inhaler devices to deliver beta-2 agonist bronchodilators for non-acute asthma. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD002158.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cochrane AL. 1931–1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics, 1979. pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EBM Reviews—Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. http://www.cochrane.de/cc/cochraneGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flynn CA, Helwig AL, Meurer LN. Bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy and the risk of prematurity: a meta-analysis. J Fam Prac 1999; 48:897–898.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girolami B, Bernardi E, Prins MH, Ten Cate JW, Hettiarachchi R, Pradoni P, et al. Treatment of intermittent claudication with physical training, smoking cessation, pentoxifylline, or nafronyl: a meta-analysis. Arch Int Med 1999; 159:1955–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen I, Sutton M, Leese B, Giuffrida A, et al. Capitation, salary, fee for service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD002215.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall M, Lockwood A. Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD001089.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas L, Cullum N, McColl E, Rousseau N, Soutter J, Steen N. Guidelines in professions allied to medicine. Cochrane Database for Syst Rev 2000; CD000349.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    British guidelines on asthma management. Thorax 1997; 52 (Suppl1):s1–s21.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pauwels RA, Lofdahl C-G, Postma DS, Tattersfield AE, O’Byrne P, Barnes PJ, Ullman A. Effect of inhaled formoterol and budesonide on exacerbations of asthma. New Engl J Med 1997; 337:1405–1411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrewsbury S, Pyke S, Britton M. A meta-analysis of increasing inhaled steroid or adding salmeterol in symptomatic asthma (MIASMA). Br Med J 2000; 320:1368–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354:1896–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sykes R. Being a modern pharmaceutical company. Br Med J 1998; 317:1172–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, Stevens R. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. Br Med J 2000; 320:537–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:1271–1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Development & Medical AffairsGlaxoSmithKlineUSA

Personalised recommendations