Dataset Information

Gastrointestinal adverse effects of short-term aspirin use: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Aspirin is widely used for short-term treatment of pain, fever or colds, but there are only limited data regarding the safety of this use. To summarize the available data on this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis of the published clinical trial literature regarding the gastrointestinal adverse effects of short-term use of aspirin in comparison with placebo and other medications commonly used for the same purpose.

Data sources and methods

An extensive literature search identified 119,310 articles regarding possible adverse effects of aspirin, among which 23,131 appeared to possibly include relevant data. An automated text-mining procedure was used to score the references for potential relevance for the meta-analysis. The 3,983 highest-scoring articles were reviewed individually to identify those with data that could be included in this analysis. Ultimately, 78 relevant articles were identified that contained gastrointestinal adverse event data from clinical trials of aspirin versus placebo or an active comparator. Odds ratios (ORs) computed using a Mantel-Haenszel estimator were used to summarize the comparative effects on dyspepsia, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, considered separately and also aggregated as 'minor gastrointestinal events'. Gastrointestinal bleeds, ulcers, and perforations were also investigated.

Results

Data were obtained regarding 19,829 subjects (34 % treated with aspirin, 17 % placebo, and 49 % an active comparator). About half of the aspirin subjects took a single dose. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of minor gastrointestinal events than placebo or active comparators: the summary ORs were 1.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.86) and 1.81 (95 % CI 1.61-2.04), respectively. Ulcers, perforation, and serious bleeding were not seen after use of aspirin or any of the other interventions.

Conclusions

During short-term use, aspirin is associated with a higher frequency of gastrointestinal complaints than other medications commonly used for treatment of pain, colds, and fever. Serious adverse events were not observed with aspirin or any of the comparators.

SUBMITTER: Baron JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3627011 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhether aspirin use can decrease or increase cancer risk remains controversial. In this study, a meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate the effect of aspirin use on common cancer risk.MethodMedline and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Meta-analyses of cohort studies and RCTs were performed to assess the effect of aspirin use on the risk of colorectal, gastric, breast, prostate and lung cancer. Cochran Q test and the I square metric were calculated to detect potential heterogeneity among studies. Subgroup meta-analyses according to exposure categories (frequency and duration) and timing of aspirin use (whether aspirin was used before and after cancer diagnosis) were also performed. A dose-response analysis was carried out to evaluate and quantify the association between aspirin dose and cancer risk.ResultsA total of 88 cohort studies and seven RCTs were included in the final analysis. Meta-analyses of cohort studies revealed that regular aspirin use reduced the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.92), gastric cancer (RR=0.67, 95%CI: 0.52-0.87), breast cancer (RR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.87-0.99) and prostate cancer (RR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.86-0.98), but showed no association with lung cancer risk. Additionally, meta-analyses of RCTs showed that aspirin use had a protective effect on CRC risk (OR=0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.97). When combining evidence from meta-analyses of cohorts and RCTs, consistent evidence was found for the protective effect of aspirin use on CRC risk. Subgroup analysis showed that high frequency aspirin use was associated with increased lung cancer risk (RR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.01-1.09). Dose-response analysis revealed that high-dose aspirin use may increase prostate cancer risk.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence for low-dose aspirin use for the prevention of CRC, but not other common cancers. High frequency or high dose use of aspirin should be prescribed with caution because of their associations with increased lung and prostate cancer risk, respectively. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings and to find the minimum effective dose required for cancer prevention.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine is a widely used drug to treat inflammatory diseases. Due to its long historical use in medicine, controlled clinical trials have been small and there remains some caution with the use of this drug in patients with co-morbidities. The aim of the study is to systematically examine the side effect profile of colchicine in controlled clinical trials across all published indications. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for double-blind controlled trials of oral colchicine in adult patients that reported adverse event data. Meta-analyses were used to determine the relative risk (RR) of adverse events in colchicine users compared to comparator groups. RESULTS:A total of 4915 studies were initially identified and after exclusions, 35 randomised controlled trials with placebo (n =?35) or active comparators (n =?5) were included. The most common diseases studied were gout, liver cirrhosis and pericarditis. There were a total of 8659 pooled participants, 4225 participants were randomised to receive colchicine, 3956 to placebo and 411 to an active comparator. Diarrhoea was reported in 17.9% of colchicine users versus 13.1% in comparator groups (RR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 3.7). Any gastrointestinal event was reported in 17.6% of colchicine users and 13.1% of comparators (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.3). Adverse liver events were reported in 1.9% of colchicine users versus 1.1% in the comparator groups (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9, 3.0). Muscle events were reported in 4.2% of colchicine users and 3.3% in the comparator groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8, 1.9). Haematology events were reported in 0.6% of colchicine users and 0.4% of comparator groups (RR 1.34 (0.64, 2.82). No study reported neuropathy events. Other sensory events were reported in 1.1% of colchicine users and 1.5% of comparator groups (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.3, 6.7). Infectious events were reported in 0.4% of colchicine users and 2.1% of comparator groups (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7, 1.5). No study reported death as an adverse event. CONCLUSION:Colchicine increases the rate of diarrhoea and gastrointestinal adverse events but does not increase the rate of liver, sensory, muscle, infectious or haematology adverse events or death.

Project description:BackgroundThe issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug's marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants.MethodsTo test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357-66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N = 258 trials.ResultsComparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [- 5.0-1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [- 1.6-3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [- 0.9-5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r = - 0.202, p = 0.408).DiscussionThe present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

Project description:Vortioxetine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2013 for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). Thus far, a number of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of vortioxetine have been conducted in patients with MDD. We performed a meta-analysis to increase the statistical power of these studies and enhance our current understanding of the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of MDD.We performed an extensive search of databases and the clinical trial registry. The mean change in total scores on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from the baseline were the primary outcome measures. The secondary efficacy measures were the response and remission rates, as defined by a 50% or greater reduction in HAM-D/MADRS total scores and as a score of 10 or less in the MADRS and 7 or less in the HAM-D total scores at the end of treatment.We included 7 published and 5 unpublished short-term (6-12 wk) RCTs in our meta-analysis. Vortioxetine was significantly more effective than placebo, with an effect size (standardized mean difference [SMD]) of -0.217 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.313 to -0.122) and with odds ratios (ORs) for response and remission of 1.652 (95% CI 1.321 to 2.067) and 1.399 (95% CI 1.104 to 1.773), respectively. Those treated with vortioxetine did not differ significantly from those treated with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors/agomelatine with regard to the SMD of the primary outcome measure (0.081, -0.062 to 0.223) or for response (OR 0.815, 95% CI 0.585 to 1.135) and remission (OR 0.843, 95% CI 0.575 to 1.238) rates. Discontinuation owing to lack of efficacy (OR 0.541, 95% CI 0.308 to 0.950) was significantly less common among those treated with vortioxetine than among those who received placebo, whereas discontinuation owing to adverse events (AEs; OR 1.530, 95% CI 1.144 to 2.047) was significantly more common among those treated with vortioxetine than among those receiving placebo. There was no significant difference in discontinuation rates between vortioxetine and comparators owing to inefficacy (OR 0.983, 95% CI 0.585 to 1.650), whereas discontinuation owing to AEs was significantly less common in the vortioxetine than in the comparator group (OR 0.728, 95% CI 0.554 to 0.957).Studies examining the role of vortioxetine in the treatment of MDD are limited.Although our results suggest that vortioxetine may be an effective treatment option for MDD, they should be interpreted and translated into clinical practice with caution, as the meta-analysis was based on a limited number of heterogeneous RCTs.

Project description:Background and objective: Long-term aspirin use for the primary prevention of cancer remains controversial, and variations in the effect of aspirin use on cancer outcomes by aspirin dose, follow-up duration, or study population have never been systematically evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of aspirin on primary cancer prevention and to determine whether the effect differed according to aspirin dose, follow-up duration, or study population. Materials and methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared aspirin use versus no aspirin use in participants without pre-existing cancer and reported cancer outcomes were selected. Data were screened and extracted by different investigators. Analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0. Total cancer incidence was defined as the primary clinical endpoint. Total cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and total bleeding events were the secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on aspirin dose, follow-up duration, and study populations. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs that randomized 200,679 participants were included. Compared with no aspirin, aspirin use was not associated with significant reductions in total cancer incidence (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.04, P = 0.72), total cancer mortality (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07, P = 0.90), or all-cause mortality (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.02, P =0.31); however, aspirin use was associated with a 44% increase in the risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.57, P < 0.00001) and a 52% increase in the risk of total bleeding events (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.74, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent results. Conclusions: Long-term aspirin use in individuals without pre-existing cancer was not associated with a significant reduction in total cancer incidence, cancer mortality, or all-cause mortality; however, aspirin use was associated with a significant increase in the risk of bleeding. Therefore, aspirin is not an appropriate choice for the primary cancer prevention.