Dataset Information

Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials.

ABSTRACT: Randomized trials provide the gold standard evidence on which rests the decision to approve novel therapeutics for clinical use. They are large and expensive and provide average but unbiased estimates of efficacy and risk. Concern has been expressed about how unrepresentative populations and conditions that pertain in randomized trials might be of the real world, including concerns about the homogeneity of the biomedical and adherence characteristics of volunteers entered into such trials, the dose and constancy of drug administration and the mixture of additional medications that are restricted in such trials but might influence outcome in practice. A distinction has been drawn between trials that establish efficacy and those that demonstrate effectiveness, drugs that patients actually consume in the real world for clinical benefit. However, randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for establishing efficacy and the testing of effectiveness with less rigorous approaches is a secondary, albeit important consideration. Despite this, there is an appreciation that average results may conceal considerable interindividual variation in drug response, leading to a failure to appreciate clinical value or risk in subsets of patients. Thus, attempts are now being made to individualize risk estimates by modulating those derived from large randomized trials with the individual baseline risk estimates based on demographic and biological criteria-the individual Numbers Needed to Treat to obtain a benefit, such as a life saved. Here, I will consider some reasons why large phase 3 trials-by far the most expensive element of drug development-may fail to address the unmet medical needs, which should justify such effort and investment.

SUBMITTER: FitzGerald GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4011393 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials.

FitzGerald Garret A GA

Circulation research 20140301 7

Randomized trials provide the gold standard evidence on which rests the decision to approve novel therapeutics for clinical use. They are large and expensive and provide average but unbiased estimates of efficacy and risk. Concern has been expressed about how unrepresentative populations and conditions that pertain in randomized trials might be of the real world, including concerns about the homogeneity of the biomedical and adherence characteristics of volunteers entered into such trials, the d ...[more]

PMID: 24677235

Similar Datasets

Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe's efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin.

Project description:Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = - 0.10%, 95% CI [- 0.17, - 0.03], body weight (MD = - 4.57 kg, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = - 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [- 5.39, - 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = - 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [- 2.74, - 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = - 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [- 0.69, - 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Dataset Information

Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials.

Publications

Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets