Risk of serious adverse events in hypertensive patients receiving isradipine: a meta-analysis

Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Studies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events.

Potential increased risk of cancer from commonly used medications: an umbrella review of meta-analyses

Several commonly used medications have been associated with increased cancer risk in the literature. Here, we evaluated the strength and consistency of these claims in published meta-analyses. We carried out an umbrella review of 74 meta-analysis articles addressing the association of commonly used medications (antidiabetics, antihyperlipidemics, antihypertensives, antirheumatics, drugs for osteoporosis, and others) with cancer risk where at least one meta-analysis in the medication class included some data from randomized trials. Overall, 51 articles found no statistically significant differences, 13 found some decreased cancer risk, and 11 found some increased risk (one reported both increased and decreased risks). The 11 meta-analyses that found some increased risks reported 16 increased risk estimates, of which 5 pertained to overall cancer and 11 to site-specific cancer. Six of the 16 estimates were derived from randomized trials and 10 from observational data. Estimates of increased risk were strongly inversely correlated with the amount of evidence (number of cancer cases) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.77, P < 0.001). In 4 of the 16 topics, another meta-analysis existed that was larger (n = 2) or included better controlled data (n = 2) and in all 4 cases there was no statistically significantly increased risk of malignancy. No medication or class had substantial and consistent evidence for increased risk of malignancy. However, for most medications we cannot exclude small risks or risks in population subsets. Such risks are unlikely to be possible to document robustly unless very large, collaborative studies with standardized analyses and no selective reporting are carried out.

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

BACKGROUND

Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention.

METHODS

Using a collection of reviews identified previously, 166 references including a meta-analysis were selected for review. At least one of the primary outcomes in each review was an adverse or unintended event. The nature of the intervention, source of funding, number of individual meta-analyses performed, number of primary studies included in the review, and use of meta-analytic methods were all recorded. Specific areas of interest relating to the methods used included the choice of outcome metric, methods of dealing with sparse events, heterogeneity, publication bias and use of individual patient data.

RESULTS

The 166 included reviews were published between 1994 and 2006. Interventions included drugs and surgery among other interventions. Many of the references being reviewed included multiple meta-analyses with 44.6% (74/166) including more than ten. Randomised trials only were included in 42.2% of meta-analyses (70/166), observational studies only in 33.7% (56/166) and a mix of observational studies and trials in 15.7% (26/166). Sparse data, in the form of zero events in one or both arms where the outcome was a count of events, was found in 64 reviews of two-arm studies, of which 41 (64.1%) had zero events in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses of adverse events data are common and useful in terms of increasing the power to detect an association with an intervention, especially when the events are infrequent. However, with regard to existing meta-analyses, a wide variety of different methods have been employed, often with no evident rationale for using a particular approach. More specifically, the approach to dealing with zero events varies, and guidelines on this issue would be desirable.

Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of including unpublished data on adverse effects in systematic reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We carried out a systematic review of methodological evaluations that compared the quantitative reporting of adverse effects data between published and unpublished sources, in particular, the frequency, rate, or risk of reported adverse effects. Included studies were sought from 10 databases as well as by checking references, handsearching, searching citations, and contacting experts.

RESULTS

We identified 6,218 potential articles yielding 10 relevant methodological evaluations. One evaluation found that adverse effects were reported more often in unpublished trials. For anecdotal case reports, two evaluations found a higher frequency of unpublished cases, whereas one study identified a greater number of published cases. Another evaluation indicated that differences in frequency of published and unpublished case reports were topic dependent. A comparison of relative risk estimates from five studies suggested no major systematic variation in risk estimates from published and unpublished studies.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of unpublished studies can provide additional adverse effects information and more precise risk estimates. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether inclusion of unpublished studies has a major influence on the pooled risk estimates in meta-analyses of adverse effects.

Challenges in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for rare harmful cardiovascular events: the case of rosiglitazone

Rare cardiovascular events of commonly used drugs are important to document and investigate, but single trials are notoriously underpowered to provide conclusive evidence. Recently, meta-analyses have been used to improve on the power. A recent rosiglitazone meta-analysis heightened the debate about the usefulness and limitations of meta-analysis in this setting. In this review, we examined the methods used in previous published meta-analyses for harmful cardiovascular events, with special attention to the rosiglitazone meta-analyses, and give suggestions for the improvement of methods and interpretation of such meta-analyses. The conduct of meta-analysis in this context is particularly difficult and requires timely investigation, availability of high-quality data on harms, and statistical expertise. There are important decisions that need to be made about selecting the appropriate analytical methods and performing sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results are robust to different analytical choices.

Has the role of calcium channel blockers in treating hypertension finally been defined?

Several large, prospective, randomized, clinical outcome trials have shown that calcium channel blockers are effective and safe antihypertensive drugs compared with placebo and reduce the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of treated patients. In other studies, when compared with conventional antihypertensive drugs, they demonstrated similar blood pressure-lowering effects and similar reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with the exception of a higher incidence of heart failure and fatal myocardial infarction in some studies. However, considering all the evidence available today, these drugs should be considered safe for the treatment of the uncomplicated hypertensive patient in combination with other drugs. They can also be used as first-line therapy for older, stroke-prone hypertensive patients. In addition, when a calcium channel blocker is indicated for better blood pressure control, its use should not be withheld for safety concerns.

Current status of safety and efficacy of calcium channel blockers in cardiovascular diseases: a critical analysis based on 100 studies

Recently, serious concerns have been expressed about the long-term safety of the calcium channel blockers (CCBs) as a group. Safety and efficacy are, however, ultimately linked to each other; therefore both must be evaluated especially in the therapy of angina and hypertension, the main clinical indications for CCBs. The structural, functional, and pharmacokinetic heterogeneity of CCBs means that the efficacy and dangers of one subclass, such as the short-acting dihydropyridines (DHPs), in one situation, such as unstable angina, do not necessarily apply in other clinical situations. One hundred studies are reviewed according to their methods of data collection: case series, case control, cohort, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and meta-analyses. Large, well-designed RCTs and the meta-analyses based on these trials remain the gold standard. Observational studies, though potentially less reliable sources of information because of selection bias, may nevertheless produce hypotheses that must then be tested in RCTs. Regarding safety, both observational studies and RCTs suggest that adverse effects of CCBs may be linked to short-acting agents, specifically short-acting nifedipine. Two good studies favor the safety of verapamil, even in short-acting form. Incomplete but increasing overall evidence favors the safety of longer-acting DHPs. Heart failure remains a class contraindication to the use of all CCBs, with some exceptions. Regarding efficacy, there are positive results of RCTs with CCBs in 2 specific clinical situations, namely, verapamil in postinfarct protection in the absence of pre-existing heart failure, and 2 outcome studies on hypertension with longer acting DHPs. These results cannot automatically be applied to other clinical situations and to other CCBs. For example, there is no evidence for the safety or efficacy of DHPs used without beta blockers in postinfarct patients. In diabetic hypertensives, 2 relatively large RCTs show that the blood pressure can be reduced by DHP-based therapy in diabetics, with a reduction in hard end points. To achieve current blood pressure goals, combination therapy is almost always necessary, and in diabetics there is strong evidence that 1 essential component should be an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. The future aim with CCBs must be to obtain a large database gathered from RCTs, which will give the same certainty about efficacy and safety that already holds for use of the diuretics in hypertension, beta-blockers in postmyocardial infarction patients, and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure.