Dataset Information

Nonspecific adverse events in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Adverse events (AEs) derived from nonspecific activity of treatments can impair the validity of trials, and even make it difficult to identify specific AEs associated with treatments. To better understand these nonspecific AEs, we investigated the AEs in placebo groups by using knee osteoarthritis clinical trials.Randomized, placebo-controlled, knee osteoarthritis trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We determined the rate of patients with AEs and the rate of dropouts caused by AEs in the active and placebo groups. Furthermore, we calculated the rate of patients for individual AEs in the placebo groups. Finally, we performed secondary analyses to identify the factors associated with these rates.Overall, 272 papers reporting 281 trials were included in the analysis. The rates of patients with AEs were 31.8% in the active groups and 27.4% in the placebo groups. The rate of the placebo groups accounted for 86.2% of the rate of the active groups. The rates of dropouts caused by AEs were 5.2% in the active groups and 4.8% in the placebo groups. The rate of the placebo groups accounted for 92.3% of the rate of the active groups. AEs in the placebo groups included a number of clinical conditions, with elevated alanine aminotransferase (0.59%; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.77) being the most common objective outcome and headache (4.48%; 95% CI: 4.20 to 4.79) being the most frequent subjective outcome. The rate of patients with AEs and the rate of dropouts caused by AEs were associated with the treatment type, delivery route, and study design.The nonspecific AEs substantially accounted for the development of AEs in the active groups and included conditions involving the entire body.

SUBMITTER: Koog YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4218813 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonspecific adverse events in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review.

Koog Yun Hyung YH Lee Jin Su JS Wi Hyungsun H

PloS one 20141103 11

<h4>Background</h4>Adverse events (AEs) derived from nonspecific activity of treatments can impair the validity of trials, and even make it difficult to identify specific AEs associated with treatments. To better understand these nonspecific AEs, we investigated the AEs in placebo groups by using knee osteoarthritis clinical trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized, placebo-controlled, knee osteoarthritis trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We determined the rate of patients with ...[more]

PMID: 25365336

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Misclassification of adverse events in clinical trials can sometimes have serious consequences. Therefore, each of the many steps involved, from a patient's adverse experience to presentation in tables in publications, should be as standardised as possible, minimising the scope for interpretation. Adverse events are categorised by a predefined dictionary, e.g. MedDRA, which is updated biannually with many new categories. The objective of this paper is to study interobserver variation and other challenges of coding. METHODS: Systematic review using PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. All studies were screened for eligibility by two authors. RESULTS: Our search returned 520 unique studies of which 12 were included. Only one study investigated interobserver variation. It reported that 12% of the codes were evaluated differently by two coders. Independent physicians found that 8% of all the codes deviated from the original description. Other studies found that product summaries could be greatly affected by the choice of dictionary. With the introduction of MedDRA, it seems to have become harder to identify adverse events statistically because each code is divided in subgroups. To account for this, lumping techniques have been developed but are rarely used, and guidance on when to use them is vague. An additional challenge is that adverse events are censored if they already occurred in the run-in period of a trial. As there are more than 26 ways of determining whether an event has already occurred, this can lead to bias, particularly because data analysis is rarely performed blindly. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence that coding of adverse events is a reliable, unbiased and reproducible process. The increase in categories has made detecting adverse events harder, potentially compromising safety. It is crucial that readers of medical publications are aware of these challenges. Comprehensive interobserver studies are needed.

Project description:BackgroundImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) have been progressively used in cancer treatment and produced unique toxicity profiles. This systematic review aims to comprehend the patterns and occurrence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) based on ICI.MethodsPICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2015 to 2020. Published clinical trials on ICI monotherapy, combined ICIs, and ICI plus other treatment with tabulated data on grade≥3 trAEs were included. Odds ratio (OR), χ2 tests were used to analyze for effect size and associations.ResultsThis review included 145 clinical trials involving 21786 patients. Grade 3-5 trAEs were more common with ICI when they were plused with other treatments compared with ICI monotherapy(54.3% versus 17.7%, 46.1%, p<0.05). Grade 3-5 trAEs were also more common with CTLA-4 mAbs compared with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 (34.2% versus 15.1%, 13.6%, p<0.05). Hyperthyroidism (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.7-8.6), nausea (OR 3.7, 95%CI 2.5-5.3), diarrhea (OR 2.7, 95%CI 2.2-3.2), colitis (OR 3.4, 95%CI 2.7-4.3), ALT increase (OR 4.9, 95%CI 3.9-6.1), AST increase (OR 3.8, 95%CI 3.0-4.9), pruritus (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.9), rash (OR 2.8, 95%CI 2.1-3.8), fatigue (OR 2.8, 95%CI 2.2-3.7), decreased appetite (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.8), and hypophysitis (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.2-3.3) were more frequent with combined ICIs. Diarrhea (OR 8.1, 95%CI 6.4-10.3), colitis (OR 12.2, 95%CI 8.7-17.1), ALT increase (OR 5.1, 95%CI 3.5-7.4), AST increase (OR 4.2, 95%CI 2.8-6.3), pruritus (OR 4.1, 95%CI 2.0-8.4), rash (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.9-6.8), hypophysitis (OR 12.1, 95%CI 6.3-23.4) were more common with CTLA-4 mAbs; whereas pneumonitis (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.1-10.3) were more frequent with PD-1 mAbs.ConclusionsDifferent immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with different treatment-related adverse events profiles. A comprehensive data in this systematic review will provide comprehensive information for clinicians.

Project description:The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.DesignA systematic literature review.Data sourcesDatabases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.MethodsDomains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.ResultsThere were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.ConclusionsWhile the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.

Project description:Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28-3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05-5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28-3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05-5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12-1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20-1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Dataset Information

Nonspecific adverse events in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review.

Publications

Nonspecific adverse events in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets