Dataset Information

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins.

Methods and findings

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR]?=?0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01, p?=?0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR?=?0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.07], p?=?0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR?=?0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.20, p?=?0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Conclusions

The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out.

SUBMITTER: Rahimi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3445446 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials.

Rahimi Kazem K Bhala Neeraj N Kamphuisen Pieter P Emberson Jonathan J Biere-Rafi Sara S Krane Vera V Robertson Michele M Wikstrand John J McMurray John J

PLoS medicine 20120918 9

<h4>Background</h4>It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised p ...[more]

PMID: 23028261

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review published and unpublished efficacy studies of agomelatine in people with depression.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesLiterature search (Pubmed, Embase, Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory file for agomelatine, manufacturers of agomelatine (Servier).Eligibility criteriaDouble blind randomised placebo and comparator controlled trials of agomelatine in depression with standard depression rating scales.Data synthesisStudies were pooled by using a random effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights for comparisons with placebo and comparator antidepressant. The primary efficacy measure (change in rating scale score) was summarised with standardised mean difference (SMD; a measure of effect size) and secondary outcome measures with relative risks. All results were presented with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by visual inspection of funnel plots and by the I(2) statistic. Moderators of effect were explored by meta-regression.ResultsWe identified 20 trials with 7460 participants meeting inclusion criteria (11 in the published literature, four from the European Medicines Agency file, and five from the manufacturer). Almost all studies used the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (score 0-50). Agomelatine was significantly more effective than placebo with an effect size (SMD) of 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.35) and relative risk of response 1.25 (1.11 to 1.4). Compared with other antidepressants, agomelatine showed equal efficacy (SMD 0.00, -0.09 to 0.10). Significant heterogeneity was uncovered in most analyses, though risk of bias was low. Published studies were more likely than unpublished studies to have results that suggested advantages for agomelatine.ConclusionsAgomelatine is an effective antidepressant with similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. Published trials generally had more favourable results than unpublished studies.

Project description:ImportanceThe risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis therapy after cancer surgery are debated. Studies that determine thrombosis risk after cancer surgery with high accuracy are needed.ObjectivesTo evaluate 1-year risk of venous thromboembolic events after major cancer surgery and how these events vary over time.Design, setting, and participantsThis register-based retrospective observational matched cohort study included data on the full population of Sweden between 1998 and 2016. All patients who underwent major surgery for cancer of the bladder, breast, colon or rectum, gynecologic organs, kidney and upper urothelial tract, lung, prostate, or gastroesophageal tract were matched in a 1:10 ratio with cancer-free members of the general population on year of birth, sex, and county of residence. Data were analyzed from February 13 to December 5, 2023.ExposureMajor surgery for cancer.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was incidence of venous thromboembolic events within 1 year after the surgery. Crude absolute risks and risk differences of events within 1 year and adjusted time-dependent cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of postdischarge events were calculated.ResultsA total of 432 218 patients with cancer (median age, 67 years [IQR, 58-75 years]; 68.7% women) and 4 009 343 cancer-free comparators (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-74 years]; 69.3% women) were included in the study. The crude 1-year cumulative risk of pulmonary embolism was higher among the cancer surgery population for all cancers, with the following absolute risk differences: for bladder cancer, 2.69 percentage points (95% CI, 2.33-3.05 percentage points); for breast cancer, 0.59 percentage points (95% CI 0.55-0.63 percentage points); for colorectal cancer, 1.57 percentage points (95% CI, 1.50-1.65 percentage points); for gynecologic organ cancer, 1.32 percentage points (95% CI, 1.22-1.41 percentage points); for kidney and upper urinary tract cancer, 1.38 percentage points (95% CI, 1.21-1.55 percentage points); for lung cancer, 2.61 percentage points (95% CI, 2.34-2.89 percentage points); for gastroesophageal cancer, 2.13 percentage points (95% CI, 1.89-2.38 percentage points); and for prostate cancer, 0.57 percentage points (95% CI, 0.49-0.66 percentage points). The cause-specific HR of pulmonary embolism comparing patients who underwent cancer surgery with matched comparators peaked just after discharge and generally plateaued 60 to 90 days later. At 30 days after surgery, the HR was 10 to 30 times higher than in the comparison cohort for all cancers except breast cancer (colorectal cancer: HR, 9.18 [95% CI, 8.03-10.50]; lung cancer: HR, 25.66 [95% CI, 17.41-37.84]; breast cancer: HR, 5.18 [95% CI, 4.45-6.05]). The hazards subsided but never reached the level of the comparison cohort except for prostate cancer. Similar results were observed for deep vein thrombosis.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found an increased rate of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer surgery. The risk persisted for about 2 to 4 months postoperatively but varied between cancer types. The increased rate is likely explained by the underlying cancer disease and adjuvant treatments. The results highlight the need for individualized venous thromboembolism risk evaluation and prophylaxis regimens for patients undergoing different surgery for different cancers.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with the use of progestin-only contraception and whether that risk differs with the mode of drug delivery (oral, intrauterine, or depot injection).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Data sourcesPubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials and case-control, cohort, and cross sectional studies with venous thromboembolic outcome for progestin-only contraception reported relative to a non-hormone comparator group.Data extractionData were extracted by two independent investigators, and consensus for inclusion was reached after assessment by additional investigators.ResultsAmong the 2022 unique references identified by all searches, eight observational studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. A total of 147 women across all studies were diagnosed with a venous thromboembolic event while taking progestin-only contraception, and the summary measure for the adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic episode for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive was, based on the random effects model, 1.03 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.39). Subgroup analysis confirmed there was no association between venous thromboembolic risk and progestin-only pills (relative risk 0.90 (0.57 to 1.45)) or a progestin intrauterine device (0.61 (0.24 to 1.53)). The relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users of an injectable progestin versus non-users was 2.67 (1.29 to 5.53).ConclusionsPublished data assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women prescribed progestin-only contraception are limited. In this meta-analysis of eight observational studies, the use of progestin-only contraception was not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users of hormonal contraception. The potential association between injectable progestins and thrombosis requires further study.

Project description:BackgroundWe 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 findingsStudies 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

Dataset Information

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets