FVIII, Protein C and the Risk of Arterial Thrombosis: More than the Sum of Its Parts.

maxresdefault
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMRLLySc4w 

Peer review is not a pissing contest. Peer reviewing is not about findings the smallest of errors and delay publication because of it. Peer review is not about being right. Peer review is not about rewriting the paper under review. Peer review is not about asking for yet another experiment.

 

Peer review is about making sure that the conclusions presented in the paper are justified by the data presented and peer review is about helping the authors get the best report on what they did.

At least that what I try to remind myself of when I write my peer review report. So what happened when I wrote a peer review about a paper presenting data on the two hemostatic factors protein C and FVIII in relation to arterial thrombosis. These two proteins are known to have a direct interaction with each other. But does this also translate into the situation where a combination of the two risk factors of the “have both, get extra risk for free”?

There are two approaches to test so-called interaction: statistical and biological. The authors presented one approach, while I thought the other approach was better suited to analyze and interpret the data. Did that result in an academic battle of arguments, or perhaps a peer review deadlock? No, the authors were quite civil to entertain my rambling thoughts and comments with additional analyses and results, but convinced me in the end that their approach have more merit in this particular situation. The editor of thrombosis and hemostasis saw this all going down and agreed with my suggestion that an accompanying editorial on this topic to help the readers understand what actually happened during the peer review process. The nice thing about this is that the editor asked me to that editorial, which can be found here, the paper by Zakai et al can be found here.

All this learned me a thing or two about peer review: Cordial peer review is always better (duh!) than a peer review street brawl, and that sharing aspects from the peer review process could help readers understand the paper in more detail. Open peer review, especially the parts where peer review is not anonymous and reports are open to readers after publication, is a way to foster both practices. In the meantime, this editorial will have to do.

 

Advertisements

New paper: External defibrillator use by bystanders and patient outcomes

source: https://goo.gl/HkZkV5
Main analyses showing the effect of AED use on several endpoints

In this paper, together with researchers from Harvard and the Institute of Public Health at the Charite, we used data from the CARES dataset to answer some questions regarding the use of automated external defibrillator (AED) in the United States.

It is known from previous studies that AED use does improve clinical outcome of those who are treated with AED. Less known is whether the treatment effect of AEDs administrated by untrained bystanders has a similar beneficial effect, especially because

1) so called neighborhood characteristics have not been taken into account previous analyses and

2) it is difficult to find the right control group.

This paper focuses on these two aspects by taking neighborhood characteristics into account and using so called “negative controls” (i.e. patients who were treated with AED but did not have a shockable rhythm).

I had a lot of fun in this project: i like when my skills are helpful outside of the fields that I am not usually working in. NOt only does it allow me to see how research methodology is applied in different fields, but it also help me understand my own field much better. After all, both AED and STEMO are methods that aim to deliver treatment to a patient as soon as possible, in fact “pre-hospitalisation”. If only a CT scanner could be that small… or can it…

The main lifting on this publication has been done by LWA. thanks for letting me join for the adventure!

The paper can be found on pubmed, and on my mendeley profile

BEMC has a Journal Club now

cropped-favicon_bemc1

After a year of successful BEMC talks and seeing the BEMC grow,  it was time for something new. We are starting a new journal club within the BEMC community, purely focussed on methods. The text below describes what we are going to to do, starting in February. (text comes from the BEMC website)

BEMC is trying something new: a journal club. In february, we will start a monthly journal to accompany the BEMC talks as an experiment. The format is subject to change as we will adapt after gaining more experience in what works and what not. For now, we are thinking along the following lines:

Why another journal club?

Aren’t we already drowning in Journal clubs? Perhaps, but not with this kind of journal club. BEMC JClub is focussed on the methods of clinical research. Many epidemiological inclined researchers work at departments who are not focussed on methodology, but rather on a disease or field of medicine. This is reflected in the topics of the different journal clubs around town. We believe there is a need for a methods journal club in Berlin. Our hope for the BEMC JClub is to fulfill that need through interdisciplinary and methodological discussions of the papers that we read.

Who is going to participate?

First of all, please remember that the BEMC community focussed on researchers with a medium to advanced epidemiological knowledge and skill set. This is not only true for our BEMC talks, but also for our JClub.

Next to this, we hope that we will end up with a good group that reflects the BEMC community. This means that we are looking for a group with a nice mix in background and experience. That means that if you think you have unique background and focus in your work, we highly encourage you to join us and make our group as diverse as possible. We strive for this diversity as we do not want the JClub sessions to become echo chambers or teaching sessions, but truly discussions that promote knowledge exchange between methodologist from different fields.

What will we read?

Anything that is relevant for those who attend. The BEMC team will ultimately determine which papers we will read, but we are nice people and listen carefully to the suggestions of regulars. Sometimes we will pick a paper on the same (or related) topic of the BEMC talk of that month.

Even though the BEMC team has the lead in the organisation, the content of the JClub should come from everybody attending. Everybody that attends the Jclub is asked to provide some points, remarks or questions to jumpstart the discussion.

What about students?

Difficult to say. The BEMC JClub is not designed to teach medical students the basics in epidemiology. Then again, everybody who is smart, can keep up and contribute to the discussion is welcome.

Are you a student and in doubt whether the BEMC JClub is for you? Just send us an email.

Where? When?

Details like this can on the BEMC Jclub website. Just click here.

New Masterclass: “Papers and Books”

“Navigating numbers” is a series of Masterclass initiated by a team of Charité researchers who think that our students should be able to get more familiar how numbers shape the field of medicine, i.e. both medical practice and medical research. And I get to organize the next in line.

I am very excited to organise the next Masterclass together with J.O. a bright researcher with a focus on health economics. As the full title of the masterclass is “Papers and Books – series 1 – intended effect of treatments”, some health economics knowledge is a must in this journal club style series of meetings.

But what will we exactly do? This Masterclass will focus on reading some papers as well as a book (very surprising), all with a focus on study design and how to do proper research into “intended effect of treatment” . I borrowed this term from one of my former epidemiology teachers, Jan Vandenbroucke, as it helps to denote only a part of the field of medical research with its own idiosyncrasies, yet not limited by study design.

The Masterclass runs for 8 meetings only, and as such not nearly enough to have the students understand all in and outs of proper study design. But that is also not the goal: we want to show the participants how one should go about when the ultimate question is medicine is asked: “should we treat or not?”

If you want to participate, please check out our flyer

New paper: Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young Adults

2017-06-16 09_26_46-Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young2017-06-16 09_25_58-Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young

Just a relative risk is not enough to fully understand the implications of your findings. Sure, if you are an expert in a field, the context of that field will help you to assess the RR. But if ou are not, the context of the numerator and denominator is often lost. There are several ways to work towards that. If you have a question that revolves around group discrimination (i.e. questions of diagnosis or prediction) the RR needs to be understood in relation to other predictors or diagnostic variables. That combination is best assessed through the added discriminatory value such as the AUC improvement or even more fancy methods like reclassification tables and net benefit indices. But if you are interested in are interested in a single factor (e.g. in questions of causality or treatment) a number needed to treat (NNT) or the Population Attributable Fraction can be used.

The PAF has been subject of my publications before, for example in these papers where we use the PAF to provide the context for the different OR of markers of hypercoagulability in the RATIO study / in a systematic review. This paper is a more general text, as it is meant to provide in insight for non epidemiologist what epidemiology can bring to the field of law. Here, the PAF is an interesting measure, as it has relation to the etiological fraction – a number that can be very interesting in tort law. Some of my slides from a law symposium that I attended addresses these questions and that particular Dutch case of tort law.

But the PAF is and remains an epidemiological measure and tells us what fraction of the cases in the population can be attributed to the exposure of interest. You can combine the PAF to a single number (given some assumptions which basically boil down to the idea that the combined factors work on an exact multiplicative scale, both statistically as well as biologically). A 2016 Lancet paper, which made huge impact and increased interest in the concept of the PAF, was the INTERSTROKE paper. It showed that up to 90% of all stroke cases can be attributed to only 10 factors, and all of them modifiable.

We had the question whether this was the same for young stroke patients. After all, the longstanding idea is that young stroke is a different disease from old stroke, where traditional CVD risk factors play a less prominent role. The idea is that more exotic causal mechanisms (e.g. hypercoagulability) play a more prominent role in this age group. Boy, where we wrong. In a dataset which combines data from the SIFAP and GEDA studies, we noticed that the bulk of the cases can be attributed to modifiable risk factors (80% to 4 risk factors). There are some elements with the paper (age effect even within the young study population, subtype effects, definition effects) that i wont go into here. For that you need the read the paper -published in stroke- here, or via my mendeley account. The main work of the work was done by AA and UG. Great job!

New paper in RPTH: Statins and the risk of DVT recurrence

coverI am very happy and honored that i can tell you that our paper “Statin use and risk of recurrent venous thrombosis: results from the MEGA follow-up study” is the very first paper in the new ISTH journal “Research and Practices in Thrombosis and Hemostasis“.

This new journal, for which I serve on the editorial board, is the sister journal of the JTH, but has a couple of focus point that are not present in the JTH. Biggest difference is the open access policy of the RPTH. Next to that, there are a couple of things or subjects that the RPTH welcomes, which are perhaps not so common in traditional journals (e.g. career development articles, educationals, nursing and patient perspectives etc).

Our paper is however a very standard paper, in the sense that it is original research publication regarding the role of statins and the risk of thrombosis recurrence. We answer the question whether statins indeed is linked with a lower risk of recurrence based on observational data, opening up the door to confounding by indication. To counteract, we applied a propensity score, and most important of all, we only used so-called “incident users”. Incident vs prevalent users of statins is a theme that has been a topic on this blog before (for example here and here). The bottom line is this: people who are currently using statins are different from people who are prescribed statins – adherence issues, side effects, or low life expectancy could be reasons for discontinuation.  You need to take this difference between these type of statin users into account, or the protective effect of statins, or any other medication for that matter, might be biassed. In the case of statins and DVT recurrence it can be argued that the risk lowering effect of statins is overestimated. In itself that is not a problem in an observational study. But if the results of this observational study is subsequently used in a sample size calculation for a proper trial, that trial will be underpowered and we might have lost our (expensive and potentially only) shot at really knowing whether or not DVT patients benefit from statins.

RPTH will be launched during ISTH 2017 which will be held in Berlin in a couple of weeks.

New paper: A Prothrombotic Score Based on Genetic Polymorphisms of the Hemostatic System Differs in Patients with IS, MI, or PAOD

logo-home[1]
frontiersin.org
My first paper in frontiers of cardiovascular medicine, an open access platform focussed on cardiovascular medicine. This is not a regular case-control study, where the prevelance of a risk factor is compared between an unselected patient group and a reference group from the general population. No, this paper takes patients with cardiovascular disease who are referred for thrombophilia testing. when the different diseases (ischemic stroke vs myocardial infarction / PAOD) are then compared in terms of their thrombophilic propensity, it is clear that these two groups are different. The first culprit to think might be that thrombophilia indeed plays a different role in the etiology of these disease, like we demonstrated in a RATIO publication as well as this systematic review, but it might also be that there is just a different referral pattern. in any case, it indicates that the role of thrombophilia – whether it is causal or physician suspected – is different between the different forms of arterial thrombosis.