Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated With BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) after treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with melanoma remain incompletely characterized.

Objective

To determine the association of BRAF and MEK inhibitor treatment with CVAEs in patients with melanoma compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.

Data sources

PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched for keywords vemurafenib, dabrafenib, encorafenib, trametinib, binimetinib, and cobinimetinib from database inception through November 30, 2018.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials reporting on CVAEs in patients with melanoma being treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors compared with patients with melanoma being treated with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy were selected.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data assessment followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were determined using random-effects and fixed-effects analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess study-level characteristics associated with CVAEs.

Main outcomes and measures

The selected end points were pulmonary embolism, a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and QTc interval prolongation. All-grade and high-grade (?3) CVAEs were recorded.

Results

Overall, 5 randomized clinical trials including 2317 patients with melanoma were selected. Treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism (RR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.23-15.44; P?=?.02), a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (RR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.74-7.94; P?Conclusions and relevanceTherapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors was associated with a higher risk of CVAEs compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. The findings may help to balance between beneficial melanoma treatment and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Mincu RI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6692687 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated With BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Mincu Raluca I RI Mahabadi Amir A AA Michel Lars L Mrotzek Simone M SM Schadendorf Dirk D Rassaf Tienush T Totzeck Matthias M

JAMA network open 20190802 8

<h4>Importance</h4>Cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) after treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with melanoma remain incompletely characterized.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the association of BRAF and MEK inhibitor treatment with CVAEs in patients with melanoma compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched for keywords vemurafenib, dabrafenib, encorafenib, trametinib, binimetinib, and cobinimeti ...[more]

PMID: 31397860

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cardiovascular adverse events (CVAE) with carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma can be potentially life-threatening and remain incompletely characterized. We performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis of carfilzomib-associated CVAE.To determine the incidence of carfilzomib-associated CVAE and to compare the rates of carfilzomib CVAE among different doses and companion therapies.PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried for the keywords "carfilzomib," "Kyprolis," and "PX-171" through January 1, 2017.Phase 1 to 3 prospective clinical trials of carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma with evaluable toxic effects data were eligible for meta-analysis.Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Pooled incidence rates and relative risks (for randomized trials) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess study-level characteristics associated with CVAE.Cardiovascular adverse events were defined as heart failure, hypertension, ischemia, and arrhythmia. All-grade and grades 3 or higher AEs and study characteristics were recorded.A total of 514 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 24 studies were eligible, including a total of 2594 patients with multiple myeloma. All-grade and grades 3 and higher CVAE were seen in 617 (18.1%) and 274 (8.2%), respectively. Phase 2 or 3 studies and carfilzomib doses of 45 mg/m2 or higher were associated with high-grade CVAE. Median age older than 65 years, prior myeloma therapies, and concurrent myeloma therapies were not associated with CVAE. For the 3 randomized clinical trials, the summary relative risk of all-grade and grade 3 or higher CVAE for patients receiving carfilzomib compared with noncarfilzomib-receiving control patients were 1.8 and 2.2, respectively.Carfilzomib was associated with a significant incidence of CVAE, with higher rates seen with higher doses of carfilzomib. Phase 1 studies may be underdetecting CVAE. Future studies are needed to identify patients at high risk for CVAE, develop optimal monitoring strategies, and explore strategies to mitigate these risks.

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:BackgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.ObjectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.ResultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.ConclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Project description:Purpose:We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of fatal adverse events that were associated with the use of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, to describe them and to statistically depict factors that were associated with these events. Method:PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were completely searched based on the following terms or relevant Medical Subject Heading ones: "atezolizumab", "durvalumab", "avelumab", and "cemiplimab". Results:A total of 26 eligible studies were identified, incorporating 6,896 unique participants. The overall incidence was 1.24% (95% CI: 0.93-1.65%). The incidence and odds were higher in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than those with urothelial carcinoma [(2.25 vs. 0.85, p = 0.04), (odds ratio [OR]: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.04-6.97, p = 0.04)], higher in the middle-aged group than the young group [(1.74 vs. 0.89, p = 0.01), (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.26-3.61, p = 0.01)], and higher in the trial phase I than the trial phase II [(1.76 vs. 0.60, p = 0.01), (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13-0.75, p = 0.01)]. Notably, the trial phase I had a higher incidence than trial phase II or III following regulating for cancer types and average age (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.71, p = 0.01, OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.24-0.95, p = 0.04, respectively). In terms of organ-specific fatal adverse events, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was frequently documented. A variety of respiratory system-related fatal adverse events were recorded, including but not limited to pneumonia and respiratory failure. As for organ-unspecific fatal adverse events, substantial cases of sepsis and neutropenia were recorded. Conclusion:This study firstly provided a comprehensive incidence and the spectrum of fatal adverse events associated with PD-L1 inhibitors, and identified three potential susceptible factors of that, yielding a capability for clinicians to distinguish high-risk populations from relatively low-risk ones, and facilitating to improve the safety of PD-L1 inhibitors broadly used in the clinical setting.

Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated With BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated With BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure