cardiovascular-agents and Diabetes--Gestational

Meta-analysis has been used extensively for evaluation of efficacy and safety of medical interventions. Its advantages and utilities are well known. However, recent studies have raised questions about the accuracy of the commonly used moment-based meta-analytic methods in general and for rare binary outcomes in particular. The issue is further complicated for studies with heterogeneous effect sizes. Likelihood-based mixed-effects modeling provides an alternative to moment-based methods such as inverse-variance weighted fixed- and random-effects estimators. In this article, we compare and contrast different mixed-effect modeling strategies in the context of meta-analysis. Their performance in estimation and testing of overall effect and heterogeneity are evaluated when combining results from studies with a binary outcome. Models that allow heterogeneity in both baseline rate and treatment effect across studies have low type I and type II error rates, and their estimates are the least biased among the models considered.

Topics: Biomedical Research; Cardiovascular Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Computer Simulation; Coronary Disease; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Likelihood Functions; Logistic Models; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted; Odds Ratio; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Pregnancy; Research Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome

Little is known about the etiology of nonsyndromic microtia. This study investigated the hypothesis that microtia is caused by vascular disruption.. The study analyzed data from the population-based National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) for deliveries between 1997 and 2005. Four hundred eleven nonsyndromic cases of microtia, with or without additional defects, were compared to 6560 nonmalformed infants with respect to maternal exposures to vasoactive medications and smoking during the periconceptional period and conditions that have previously been associated with vascular events (multiple gestation, maternal history of type 1, type 2, or gestational diabetes, and hypertension). Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated with multivariable models, controlling for the effects of race/ethnicity, education, periconceptional folic acid use, and study center.. Risk estimates for vasoactive medications and smoking were not meaningfully increased. Maternal type 1/2 diabetes was diagnosed before or during the index pregnancy in 4% and 1% of cases, respectively, compared to 1% and 0.05% of controls; the adjusted OR for these two groups combined was 7.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-13.1). Gestational diabetes was observed for 9% of cases and 6% of controls; the OR was moderately elevated (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.0). ORs were also increased for multiple gestations (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.2) and pre-existing hypertension (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5).. Because ORs were only elevated for diabetes and not for vasoactive exposures or other potential vascular events, findings suggest that some microtia occurrences may be part of the diabetic embryopathy rather than manifestations of vascular disruption. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Topics: Cardiovascular Agents; Congenital Abnormalities; Congenital Microtia; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetes, Gestational; Ear; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Exposure; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy in Diabetics; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Smoking; United States