Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for ethnic differences in susceptibility to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to cardiovascular drugs. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline and Embase to March 2005. Reference lists of identified articles were hand searched for further relevant articles. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included at least two ethnic groups and one or more ADRs. We excluded case reports and case series. RESULTS: 564 studies contained some description of ethnicity and an ADR, and 132 of them related to cardiovascular therapies. Twenty four studies provided data for ADRs for at least two ethnic groups and were therefore eligible for inclusion. In pooled analyses the relative risk of angio-oedema from angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in black compared with non-black patients was 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 3.7); the relative risk of cough from ACE inhibitors was 2.7 (1.6 to 4.5) in East Asian compared with white patients; and the relative risk of intracranial haemorrhage with thrombolytic therapy was 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9) in black compared with non-black patients. CONCLUSION: Patients from different ethnic groups have different risks for important ADRs to cardiovascular drugs. Ethnic group may therefore be one determinant of harms of a given treatment in the individual patient, either because it acts as a surrogate measure of genetic make up or because cultural factors alter the risk. Data are sparse, and regulators should consider asking for better data before licensing.

SUBMITTER: McDowell SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1463974 | biostudies-literature | 2006 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine.

McDowell Sarah E SE Coleman Jamie J JJ Ferner R E RE

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060505 7551

<h4>Objective</h4>To review the evidence for ethnic differences in susceptibility to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to cardiovascular drugs.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>We searched Medline and Embase to March 2005. Reference lists of identified articles were hand searched for further relevant articles.<h4>Review methods</h4>Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included at least two ethnic groups and one or more ADRs. We excluded case reports and c ...[more]

PMID: 16679330

Similar Datasets

Project description:Given the importance of inflammation at the onset of multiple sclerosis (MS), therapy is mainly based on the use of anti-inflammatory drugs including disease modifying therapies (DMTs). Considering the recent approval of some DMTs, pharmacovigilance becomes a fundamental tool for the acquisition of new safety data. The aim of the study was to analyze adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the use of drugs approved for MS. All national publicly-available aggregated ADR reports recorded from 2002 to 2020 into the Reports of Adverse Reactions of Medicines (RAM) system and all complete Sicilian data reported into the Italian spontaneous reporting system (SRS) database having as suspected drugs interferon β-1a (IFN β-1a), interferon β-1b (IFN β-1b), peginterferon β-1a (PEG-IFN β-1a), glatiramer acetate (GA), natalizumab (NTZ), fingolimod (FNG), teriflunomide (TRF), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), alemtuzumab (Alem), ocrelizumab (OCZ), or cladribine (Cladr), were collected. Descriptive analyses of national, publicly-available aggregated data and full-access regional data were performed to assess demographic characteristics and drug-related variables followed by a more in-depth analysis of all Sicilian ADRs with a case-by-case assessment and a disproportionality analysis of unexpected ADRs. A total of 13,880 national reports have been collected from 2002 to 2020: they were mainly not serious ADRs (67.9% vs. 26.1%) and related to females (71.7% vs. 26.3%) in the age group 18-65 years (76.5%). The most reported ADRs were general and administration site conditions (n = 6,565; 47.3%), followed by nervous (n = 3,090; 22.3%), skin (n = 2,763; 19.9%) and blood disorders (n = 2,180; 15.7%). Some unexpected Sicilian ADRs were shown, including dyslipidemia for FNG (n = 10; ROR 28.5, CI 14.3-59.6), NTZ (n = 5; 10.3, 4.1-25.8), and IFN β-1a (n = 4; 8.7, 3.1-24.1), abortion and alopecia for NTZ (n = 9; 208.1, 73.4-590.1; n = 3; 4.9, 1.5-15.7), and vitamin D deficiency for GA (n = 3; 121.2, 30.9-475.3). Moreover, breast cancer with DMF (n = 4, 62.8, 20.5-191.9) and hypothyroidism with Cladr (n = 3; 89.2, 25.9-307.5) were also unexpected. The reporting of drugs-related ADRs in MS were mostly reported in the literature, but some unknown ADRs were also found. However, further studies are necessary to increase the awareness about the safety profiles of new drugs on the market.

Project description:BackgroundThis active, open observational study aimed to investigate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with six commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in southern Chinese outpatients with epilepsy from 2003 to 2015.MethodsThe Wenzhou Epilepsy Follow-Up Registry Database (WEFURD) was established by a single epilepsy center in China in January 2003 to record AED efficacy and the associated ADRs by registered outpatients diagnosed with epilepsy. We reviewed the data of outpatients who had only taken one or more of six commonly used AEDs, namely, carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM) and levetiracetam (LEV), and were registered in the WEFURD between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated the ADRs caused by the single or combined use of the above six specific AEDs based on the WHO-UMC scale. The data of the ADRs were categorized by age, sex, number of AEDs related to ADRs, medications, seriousness of ADRs, causality levels of the WHO-UMC scale and system organ class (SOC). The unit of analysis was one ADR.ResultsA total of 3069 epilepsy outpatients (1807 outpatients with 5049 eligible ADRs and 1262 outpatients without ADRs) were included. The overall ADR rate was 58.88% (1807/3069). An average of 2.79 ADRs (5049/1807) occurred per patient with an ADR; 53.8% of the 5049 ADRs were recorded in females, and 50.4% were caused by monotherapy. Of the ADRs, 10.6% (537/5049) were severe adverse reactions (SARs), including 34 serious adverse effects (SAEs). The SAR rates caused by one, two and three or more AEDs were 9.9, 10.0 and 19.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Eighteen SOC categories were identified, and the top three were psychiatric disorders (1633/5049, 32.3%), neurological disorders (1222/5049, 24.2%) and gastrointestinal disorders (564/5049, 11.2%). Of the 537 SARs, skin and appendage disorders accounted for 24.4% (131/537). Among the 34 SAEs, serious allergies, fetal malformations, renal calculus and pancreatitis accounted for the majority.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that clinicians should pay attention to psychiatric ADRs and be alert for SARs, especially when three or more AEDs are used together. Moreover, active surveillance might provide another method of pharmacovigilance in China.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the anticipated efficacy of escitalopram in treating depression and anxiety in individuals with preexisting cardiovascular conditions, persistent concerns regarding its adverse effects have emerged. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of escitalopram compared with that of placebo in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease.MethodsWe used a predefined search strategy in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies evaluating adverse cardiovascular reactions to escitalopram in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided results on cardiovascular safety outcomes were included. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts of the individual studies. The risk of bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.ResultsThe primary outcomes were the frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), QTc prolongation, and discontinuation of study medication. We identified 5 RCTs with 773 participants who met the inclusion criteria. Escitalopram was not associated with significantly increased risk of MACE (risk ratio [RR] = 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80 to 4.26; I2 0%; 5 RCTs; n = 773, moderate certainty of evidence), discontinuation of study medication (RR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.84-1.26; I2 0%; 5 RCTs; n = 773, low certainty of evidence), and QTc prolongation (RR = 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.90; I2 0%; 4 RCTs; n = 646, low certainty of evidence).ConclusionEscitalopram does not significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular adverse reactions compared with placebo in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. However, the presence of wide CIs and the limited number of included studies highlight the need for further studies with larger sample sizes to enhance the precision and reliability of these findings.Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [CRD42022298181].

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine.

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets