Intravenous immunoglobulin and idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage: methodological problems.

D. Clark

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der185

IF: 6.1

2011-09-01

Human Reproduction

Abstract:Sir, Stephenson et al. (2010) report a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage and conclude ‘no benefit was found’. A variety of serious methodologic flaws question the integrity of this conclusion. First, the planned sample size was not achieved due to slow recruitment, and the authors chose to make a report based on an underpowered study, a well-known error (Altman and Bland, 1995; Halpern et al., 2002). Meta-analysis gave a small positive benefit in the patients receiving IVIG, but Stephenson et al. failed to consider how large the trial would have had to have been to confidently conclude that this represented ‘no treatment effect’. The number may be estimated at 407 in each group (Clark, 2011); one calculates a Pa value at the end of a study, to avoid a type I error, and there is no reason why one should not also calculate a Pb error, to estimate the risk of a type II error, and to determine how large the sample should have been for adequate power given the true (observed) treatment effect size was less than the apparently over-optimistic guesstimate at the beginning when the study was designed. Hence, the correct conclusion for the Stephenson et al. study should have been that no conclusion is possible given the inadequate sample size achieved. Second, the authors set out to study an immunomodulatory treatment but did not think it wise to determine if the subjects had any detectable immune abnormalities that would merit their inclusion in a study of a putative immune therapy. Indeed, they excluded from their meta-analysis two trials by Christiansen et al. (1995, 2002) because some of the patients in these studies had immune abnormalities. One would not logically expect a treatment to work in a patient who did not have a condition that the treatment could correct, so what physiologic abnormality did Stephenson et al. think they might be correcting with IVIG treatment? If the Christiansen et al. data are included in the meta-analysis, the net result is a statistically significant positive benefit (Fig. 1A). Subdividing the trials as includable or not includable in a meta-analysis, as done by Stephenson et al., shows a rather striking difference (Fig. 1B); the success rates with IVIG treatment were similar in the two groups, but the control group in the Christiansen et al. trials had a much lower spontaneous success rate. It is much easier to detect a positive treatment effect when the patients have a condition causing a high rate of loss, and a simple power analysis shows the total sample size in the Christiansen et al. RCTs was more than adequate for 80% power (Clark, 2011). Small studies with inadequate power, in contrast, produce results which are untrustworthy, whether the Pa value is ,0.05 or .0.05 (Clark et al., 2001). Third, whilst CD56+162 NK cells that predominate in the uterus may play a role in enhancing neovascularization of the implanting embryo, it is CD56+16+ type NK cells that predominate in circulating blood that are considered important in the pathogenesis of recurrent miscarriage

Medicine