Dataset Information

Amphetamines, atomoxetine and the risk of serious cardiovascular events in adults.

ABSTRACT:

Main objective

To compare the incidence rates of serious cardiovascular events in adult initiators of amphetamines or atomoxetine to rates in non-users.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of new amphetamines (n=38,586) or atomoxetine (n=20,995) users. Each medication user was matched to up to four non-users on age, gender, data source, and state (n=238,183). The following events were primary outcomes of interest 1) sudden death or ventricular arrhythmia, 2) stroke, 3) myocardial infarction, 4) a composite endpoint of stroke or myocardial infarction. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to calculate propensity-adjusted hazard ratios for amphetamines versus matched non-users and atomoxetine versus matched non-users, with intracluster dependence within matched sets accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator.

Results

The propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for amphetamines use versus non-use was 1.18 (95% CI: 0.55-2.54) for sudden death/ventricular arrhythmia, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.44-1.47) for stroke, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.42-1.35) for myocardial infarction, and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.51-1.19) for stroke/myocardial infarction. The propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for atomoxetine use versus non-use was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.10-1.75) for sudden death/ventricular arrhythmia, 1.30 (95% CI: 0.52-3.29) for stroke, 0.56 (95% CI: 0.16-2.00) for myocardial infarction, and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.44-1.92) for stroke/myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

Initiation of amphetamines or atomoxetine was not associated with an elevated risk of serious cardiovascular events. However, some of the confidence intervals do not exclude modest elevated risks, e.g. for sudden death/ventricular arrhythmia.

SUBMITTER: Schelleman H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3559703 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:More than 1.5 million US adults use stimulants and other medications labeled for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These agents can increase heart rate and blood pressure, raising concerns about their cardiovascular safety.To examine whether current use of medications prescribed primarily to treat ADHD is associated with increased risk of serious cardiovascular events in young and middle-aged adults.Retrospective, population-based cohort study using electronic health care records from 4 study sites (OptumInsight Epidemiology, Tennessee Medicaid, Kaiser Permanente California, and the HMO Research Network), starting in 1986 at 1 site and ending in 2005 at all sites, with additional covariate assessment using 2007 survey data. Participants were adults aged 25 through 64 years with dispensed prescriptions for methylphenidate, amphetamine, or atomoxetine at baseline. Each medication user (n = 150,359) was matched to 2 nonusers on study site, birth year, sex, and calendar year (443,198 total users and nonusers).Serious cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (MI), sudden cardiac death (SCD), or stroke, with comparison between current or new users and remote users to account for potential healthy-user bias.During 806,182 person-years of follow-up (median, 1.3 years per person), 1357 cases of MI, 296 cases of SCD, and 575 cases of stroke occurred. There were 107,322 person-years of current use (median, 0.33 years), with a crude incidence per 1000 person-years of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.14-1.57) for MI, 0.30 (95% CI, 0.20-0.42) for SCD, and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.72) for stroke. The multivariable-adjusted rate ratio (RR) of serious cardiovascular events for current use vs nonuse of ADHD medications was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72-0.96). Among new users of ADHD medications, the adjusted RR was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.94). The adjusted RR for current use vs remote use was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.86-1.24); for new use vs remote use, the adjusted RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.82-1.28); the upper limit of 1.28 corresponds to an additional 0.19 events per 1000 person-years at ages 25-44 years and 0.77 events per 1000 person-years at ages 45-64 years.Among young and middle-aged adults, current or new use of ADHD medications, compared with nonuse or remote use, was not associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events. Apparent protective associations likely represent healthy-user bias.

Project description:To examine the risk of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation.Meta-analysis comparing study effects using four summary estimates.Medline, Cochrane Library, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists of identified articles.We included randomised controlled trials of current tobacco users of adult age comparing use of varenicline with an inactive control and reporting adverse events. We defined treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events as occurring during drug treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, and included any ischaemic or arrhythmic adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, sudden death or cardiovascular related death, or congestive heart failure).We identified 22 trials; all were double blinded and placebo controlled; two included participants with active cardiovascular disease and 11 enrolled participants with a history of cardiovascular disease. Rates of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events were 0.63% (34/5431) in the varenicline groups and 0.47% (18/3801) in the placebo groups. The summary estimate for the risk difference, 0.27% (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.63; P = 0.15), based on all 22 trials, was neither clinically nor statistically significant. For comparison, the relative risk (1.40, 0.82 to 2.39; P = 0.22), Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (1.41, 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.22), and Peto odds ratio (1.58, 0.90 to 2.76; P = 0.11), all based on 14 trials with at least one event, also indicated a non-significant difference between varenicline and placebo groups.This meta--analysis--which included all trials published to date, focused on events occurring during drug exposure, and analysed findings using four summary estimates-found no significant increase in cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use. For rare outcomes, summary estimates based on absolute effects are recommended and estimates based on the Peto odds ratio should be avoided.

Project description:BackgroundGlucose, insulin and Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) are markers of insulin resistance. The objective of this study is to compare fasting glucose, fasting insulin concentrations and HOMA-IR in strength of association with incident cardiovascular disease.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March, 2011, and screened reference lists. Cohort studies or nested case-control studies that investigated the association between fasting glucose, fasting insulin or HOMA-IR and incident cardiovascular disease, were eligible. Two investigators independently performed the article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Cardiovascular endpoints were coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke or combined cardiovascular disease. We used fixed and random-effect meta-analyses to calculate the pooled relative risk for CHD, stroke and combined cardiovascular disease, comparing high to low concentrations of glucose, insulin or HOMA-IR. Study heterogeneity was calculated with the I(2) statistic. To enable a comparison between cardiovascular disease risks for glucose, insulin and HOMA-IR, we calculated pooled relative risks per increase of one standard deviation.ResultsWe included 65 studies (involving 516,325 participants) in this meta-analysis. In a random-effect meta-analysis the pooled relative risk of CHD (95% CI; I(2)) comparing high to low concentrations was 1.52 (1.31, 1.76; 62.4%) for glucose, 1.12 (0.92, 1.37; 41.0%) for insulin and 1.64 (1.35, 2.00; 0%) for HOMA-IR. The pooled relative risk of CHD per one standard deviation increase was 1.21 (1.13, 1.30; 64.9%) for glucose, 1.04 (0.96, 1.12; 43.0%) for insulin and 1.46 (1.26, 1.69; 0.0%) for HOMA-IR.ConclusionsThe relative risk of cardiovascular disease was higher for an increase of one standard deviation in HOMA-IR compared to an increase of one standard deviation in fasting glucose or fasting insulin concentration. It may be useful to add HOMA-IR to a cardiovascular risk prediction model.