Back

Factors Associated with Medicine Timing Effects: A Meta-analysis

Ruben, M. D.; Francey, L. J.; Wu, G.; Smith, D. F.; Fitzgerald, G. A.; Hughey, J. J.; Hogenesch, J. B.

2021-10-26 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2021.10.24.21265348 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceClinical evidence suggests that the time of day of treatment can affect outcomes in many different diseases, but this information is dispersed, imprecise, and heterogeneous. Consequently, practice guidelines and clinical care recommendations seldom specify intervention time. ObjectiveTo understand the sources of variability and summarize clinical findings on the time of day effects of medicine. Data SourcesA systematic search of Pubmed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for "chronotherapy" OR "time of administration". Study SelectionAny clinical study since 2000, randomized or observational, that compared the effects of treatment at different times of day. We included pharmacologic or surgical interventions having at least one continuous outcome. Data Extraction and SynthesisFor selected studies, we extracted the mean and variance of each time-of-day treatment group. From these, we computed the standardized mean difference (SMD) as the measure of timing effect. Where a study reported multiple outcomes, we selected a single outcome based on a defined order of priority. Main Outcomes and MeasuresWe estimated overall pooled effect size and heterogeneity by a random effects model, followed by outlier detection and subgroup analyses to evaluate how study factors, including drug, design, outcome, and source, associate with timing effect. Results78 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 48 distinct interventions over many therapeutic areas. We found an overall effect of time on clinical outcomes but with substantial heterogeneity between studies. Predicted effects range from none to large depending on the study context. Study size, registration status, and source are associated with the magnitude of effect. Larger trials and those that were pre-registered have markedly smaller effects, suggesting that the published record overstates the effects of the timing of medicine on clinical outcomes. In particular, the notion that antihypertensives are more effective if taken at bedtime draws disproportionately from one source in the field, which consistently detects larger effects than the community average. Lastly, among the most highly studied drug timing relationships, aspirins anti-clotting effect stands out, consistently favoring evening over morning dosing. Conclusions and RelevanceWhile accounts of drug timing effects have focused on yes/no, appreciating the range of probable effects may help clarify where circadian medicine meets the threshold for clinical benefit.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.3%
2
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.3%
3
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.3%
5
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
8
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
9
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.5%
16
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 67%
1.2%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
21
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
26
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
Cardiovascular Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
28
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
30
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%