Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Catt H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6492112 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC10163511 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7020579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.DesignA review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.Data sourcesElectronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.MethodsA prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.ResultsWe identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.ConclusionsThis review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.
| S-EPMC6398660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNaltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 to 250 mg. The aim of this review was to extensively evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events and adverse events in randomised controlled trials of naltrexone compared to placebo.MethodsA systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to May 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials longer than 4 weeks published after 1 January 2001 of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition or age group was included, excluding only studies in opioid or ex-opioid users owing to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses harms checklist throughout. Numerical data were independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed in R using random effects models throughout.ResultsEighty-nine randomised controlled trials with 11,194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders (n = 38), various psychiatric disorders (n = 13), impulse control disorders (n = 9), other addictions including smoking (n = 18), obesity or eating disorders (n = 6), Crohn's disease (n = 2), fibromyalgia (n = 1) and cancers (n = 2). Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded serious adverse events occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of serious adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (risk difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.02-0.00) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. Secondary analysis revealed only six marginally significant adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo, which were of mild severity.ConclusionsNaltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of serious adverse events over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of oral naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017054421 .
| S-EPMC6332608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.
| S-EPMC1257433 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4218813 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3401103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One in three patients with Crohn's disease will develop a perianal fistulae, and one third of these will achieve long-term healing or closure. A barrier to conducting well-designed clinical trials for these patients is a lack of understanding of prognostic factors. This systematic review sets out to identify factors associated with prognosis of perianal Crohn's fistulae.This review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42016050316) and conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines along a predefined protocol. English-language studies assessing baseline factors related to outcomes of fistulae treatment in adult patients were included. Searches were performed on MEDLINE and Embase databases. Screening of abstracts and full texts for eligibility was performed prior to extraction of data into predesigned forms. Bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool.Searches identified 997 papers. Following removal of duplicates and secondary searches, 923 were screened for inclusion. Forty-seven papers were reviewed at full-text level and 13, 2 of which were randomised trials, were included in the final qualitative review. Two studies reported distribution of Crohn's disease as a prognostic factor for healing. Two studies found that CARD15 mutations decreased response of fistulae to antibiotics. Complexity of fistulae anatomy was implicated in prognosis by 4 studies.This systematic review has identified potential prognostic markers, including genetic factors and disease behaviour. We cannot, however, draw robust conclusions from this heterogeneous group of studies; therefore, we recommend that a prospective cohort study of well-characterised patients with Crohn's perianal fistulae is undertaken.
| S-EPMC5550543 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidence of major adverse events (AEs) occurring in hospital or within 30 days after surgery in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and to identify risk factors for these AEs. METHODS:Systematic review and analysis of studies published in English since 1990. Studies of isolated standard CABG reporting postoperative incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal failure, or death in hospital or within 30 days were eligible for inclusion. Incidence of these events was calculated overall and for selected patient groups defined by all elective CABG versus mixed (some non-elective); mean ejection fraction < or = 50% versus > 50%; mean age < or= 60 versus > 60 years; primary CABG versus some reoperations; randomised controlled trials versus cohort studies; and single centre versus multicentre studies. Odds ratios of selected AEs were computed according to group risk factors. RESULTS:176 studies (205 717 patients) met all inclusion criteria. The average incidence of major AEs occurring in-hospital was death (1.7%); non-fatal MI (2.4%); non-fatal stroke (1.3%); gastrointestinal bleeding (1.5%); and renal failure (0.8%). Thirty day mortality was 2.1%. Meta-analyses show that age > 70, female sex, low ejection fraction, history of stroke, MI, or heart surgery, and presence of diabetes or hypertension are all associated with increased 30 day mortality after CABG. CONCLUSION:The incidence of major AEs in patients after CABG varies widely across studies and patient populations, and this heterogeneity must be controlled when using the literature to benchmark safety.
| S-EPMC1767742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsNocebo effects, adverse outcomes occurring in patients receiving inert therapy, contribute to adverse event [AE] reporting in randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. High placebo AE rates may result in inaccurate estimation of treatment-related AEs. We estimate the pooled rate of AEs in patients randomized to placebo compared to active therapy in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] RCTs.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched to March 1, 2017 for RCTs of conventional medical therapies for Crohn's disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC]. Rates of AEs, serious AEs [SAEs], AE-related trial withdrawal, infections and worsening IBD were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included 124 CD [n = 26 042] and 71 UC RCTs [n = 16 798]. The pooled placebo AE rate was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65.3%, 75.4%) and 54.5% [47.8%, 61.1%] in CD and UC RCTs, respectively. There was no significant risk difference [RD] in AE, SAE or AE-related withdrawal rates between CD patients receiving placebo or active drug. A 1.6% [95% CI: 0.1%, 3.1%] increase in AE rates was observed among UC patients randomized to active therapy. Patients receiving active therapy had a higher risk of infection (RD 1.0% [95% CI: 0.4%, 1.7%] for CD, 2.9% [95% CI: 1.4%, 4.4%] for UC) although a lower risk of worsening CD (RD -3.2% [95% CI: -4.8%, -1.5%]) or UC (RD -3.7% [95% CI: -5.7%, -1.8%]).ConclusionsAEs are commonly reported by patients randomized to either placebo or active treatment in IBD RCTs. Clinically relevant differences in AE, SAE and AE-related withdrawal were not observed.
| S-EPMC6751339 | biostudies-literature