Serious adverse events in patients with target-oriented blood pressure management: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Frey L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6784853 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Serious adverse events in patients with target-oriented blood pressure management: a systematic review.
Frey Lukas L Gravestock Isaac I Pichierri Giuseppe G Steurer Johann J Burgstaller Jakob M JM
Journal of hypertension 20191101 11
: On the basis of the benefits of antihypertensive treatment, progressively intensive treatment is advocated. However, it remains controversial whether intensive blood pressure control might increase the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) compared with moderate control. This review assessed the occurrence of SAEs in blood pressure treatment with predefined blood pressure targets. Seven original studies and eight post hoc analyses (derived from two original studies) met the inclusion crit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCommunication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.ObjectivesTo quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001).ConclusionsOver 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.
| S-EPMC9640478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite a historical association with poor tolerability, a comprehensive review on safety of antileishmanial chemotherapies is lacking. We carried out an update of a previous systematic review of all published clinical trials in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) from 1980 to 2019 to document any reported serious adverse events (SAEs).MethodsFor this updated systematic review, we searched the following databases from 1st Jan 2016 through 2nd of May 2019: PUBMED, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and the Global Index Medicus. We included randomised and non-randomised interventional studies aimed at assessing therapeutic efficacy and extracted the number of SAEs reported within the first 30 days of treatment initiation. The incidence rate of death (IRD) from individual treatment arms were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects Poisson regression.ResultsWe identified 157 published studies enrolling 35,376 patients in 347 treatment arms. Pentavalent antimony was administered in 74 (21.3%), multiple-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in 52 (15.0%), amphotericin b deoxycholate in 51 (14.7%), miltefosine in 33 (9.5%), amphotericin b fat/lipid/colloid/cholesterol in 31 (8.9%), and single-dose L-AmB in 17 (4.9%) arms. There was a total of 804 SAEs reported of which 793 (including 428 deaths) were extracted at study arm level (11 SAEs were reported at study level only). During the first 30 days, there were 285 (66.6%) deaths with the overall IRD estimated at 0.068 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.041-0.114; I2 = 81.4%; 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.001-2.779] per 1,000 person-days at risk; the rate was 0.628 [95% CI: 0.368-1.021; I2 = 82.5%] in Eastern Africa, and 0.041 [95% CI: 0.021-0.081; I2 = 68.1%] in the Indian Subcontinent. In 21 study arms which clearly indicated allowing the inclusion of patients with HIV co-infections the IRD was 0.575 [95% CI: 0.244-1.355; I2 = 91.9%] compared to 0.043 [95% CI: 0.020-0.090; I2 = 62.5%] in 160 arms which excluded HIV co-infections.ConclusionMortality within the first 30 days of VL treatment initiation was a rarely reported event in clinical trials with an overall estimated rate of 0.068 deaths per 1,000 person-days at risk, though it varied across regions and patient populations. These estimates may serve as a benchmark for future trials against which mortality data from prospective and pharmacovigilance studies can be compared. The methodological limitations exposed by our review support the need to assemble individual patient data (IPD) to conduct robust IPD meta-analyses and generate stronger evidence from existing trials to support treatment guidelines and guide future research.
| S-EPMC8031744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhether time-in-target range (TTR) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) associates with adverse kidney and cardiovascular events remains incompletely understood.MethodsThis study included participants in 2 clinical trials that compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) and standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. SBP-TTR for months 0 to 3 was calculated using therapeutic ranges of 110 to 130 mm Hg and 120 to 140 mm Hg for the intensive and standard arms, respectively. Adverse kidney events included the composite of dialysis, kidney transplant, serum creatinine >3.3 mg/dL, sustained eGFR <15 mL/(min·1.73 m2), or sustained eGFR decline >40%. Adverse cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between SBP-TTR and kidney and cardiovascular events.ResultsParticipants with higher TTR were younger and less likely to have preexisting cardiovascular disease. Compared with participants with TTR of 0%, the risk of adverse kidney events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.57 [0.42-0.76]; P<0.001), 43% to <70% (0.57 [0.42-0.78]; P=0.001), 70% to <100% (0.53 [0.38-0.74]; P<0.001), and 100% (0.33 [0.20-0.57]; P<0.001) in fully adjusted models. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (0.66 [0.52-0.83]; P=0.001), 43% to <70% (0.70 [0.55-0.90]; P=0.005), 70% to <100% (0.65 [0.50-0.84]; P=0.001), or 100% (0.56 [0.39-0.80]; P=0.001) compared with those with TTR of 0%.ConclusionsHigher SBP-TTR associates with lower risks of adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension. SBP-TTR may be a potential therapeutic target and quality metric.
| S-EPMC9851984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere have been postmarketing reports of adverse cardiovascular events associated with the use of varenicline, a widely used smoking cessation drug. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to ascertain the serious adverse cardiovascular effects of varenicline compared with placebo among tobacco users.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, websites of regulatory authorities and registries of clinical trials, with no date or language restrictions, through September 2010 (updated March 2011) for published and unpublished studies. We selected double-blind randomized controlled trials of at least one week's duration involving smokers or people who used smokeless tobacco that reported on cardiovascular events (ischemia, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, sudden death or cardiovascular-related death) as serious adverse events asociated with the use of varenicline.ResultsWe analyzed data from 14 double-blind randomized controlled trials involving 8216 participants. The trials ranged in duration from 7 to 52 weeks. Varenicline was associated with a significantly increased risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo (1.06% [52/4908] in varenicline group v. 0.82% [27/3308] in placebo group; Peto odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-2.71; I(2) = 0%). The results of various sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the main analysis, and a funnel plot showed no publication bias. There were too few deaths to allow meaningful comparisons of mortality.InterpretationOur meta-analysis raises safety concerns about the potential for an increased risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events associated with the use of varenicline among tobacco users.
| S-EPMC3168618 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8144509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, though uncertainty exists regarding their immune-related safety. The objective of this study was to assess the comparative safety profile (odds ratio) of ICIs and estimate the absolute rate of immune-related serious adverse events (irSAEs) in cancer patients undergoing treatment with ICIs.MethodsWe searched for randomized trials till February 2021, including all ICIs for all cancers. Primary outcome was overall irSAEs, and secondary outcomes were pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, hypophysitis, myocarditis, nephritis, and pancreatitis. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses, estimated absolute rates and ranked treatments according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsWe included 96 trials (52,811 participants, median age 62 years). Risk of bias was high in most trials. Most cancers were non-small cell lung cancer (28 trials) and melanoma (15 trials). The worst-ranked ICI was ipilimumab (SUCRA 14%; event rate 848/10,000 patients) while the best-ranked ICI was atezolizumab (SUCRA 82%; event rate 119/10,000 patients).ConclusionEach ICI showed a unique safety profile, with certain events more frequently observed with specific ICIs, which should be considered when managing cancer patients.
| S-EPMC11001692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCell therapy holds the most promising for acute and chronic deleterious respiratory diseases. However, the safety and tolerance for lung disorders are controversy.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of all 23 clinical studies of cell therapy. The outcomes were odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), Peto OR, relative risk, and mean difference of serious adverse events.Results342 systemic infusions and 57 bronchial instillations (204 recipients) of cells were analyzed for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary arterial hypertension, silicosis, sarcoidosis, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The frequency of death in adults from any causes was 71 and 177 per 1,000 for cell therapy and controls, respectively, with an OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.03, 3.76) and RD of -0.22 (95% CI: -0.53, 0.09). No significant difference was found for ARDS and COPD. The frequency of deaths and non-fatal serious adverse events of 17 open studies were similar to those of randomized controlled trials. Moreover, serious adverse events of allogenic cells were greater than autologous preparations, as shown by frequency, OR and RD.ConclusionsWe conclude that either infusion or instillation of mesenchymal stem stromal or progenitor cells are well tolerated without serious adverse events causally related to cell treatment. Cell therapy has not been associated with significant changes in spirometry, immune function, cardiovascular activity, and the quality of life.
| S-EPMC5444761 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3344735 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe dose of intrathecal morphine is important because of its narrow therapeutic range. Due to a compounding error, pharmacy-compounded, ready-to-use syringes contained 1 mg ml-1 morphine instead of the intended 50 mcg ml-1. Six patients consequently received this twenty-fold dose. This study aims to describe the serious adverse events in these six patients and a systematic review is added to describe the characteristics of serious adverse events after intrathecal morphine.MethodsA retrospective case series described all six patients that received the erroneous morphine intrathecally for analgesia after laparoscopic segmental colonic resections. The patients' charts were reviewed for the occurrence, timing, duration and management of adverse events, the vital signs at the night after surgery, and length of hospital stay. A systematic review investigated characteristics of serious adverse events after intrathecal morphine in a perioperative setting.ResultsFour patients had a serious adverse event, which was respiratory depression combined with somnolence (n = 3) and hypotension (n = 1). The review yielded 63 cases with serious adverse events, predominantly somnolence and/or respiratory depression. The onset occurred between 2 and 24 hours after injection. The severity of symptoms varied and life-threatening respiratory depression only occurred after a dose >900 mcg or when potentiating medication was used. Naloxone did not affect analgesia. No prolonged sequalae occurred.ConclusionThis study reveals that respiratory depression and somnolence are the predominant serious adverse events after intrathecal morphine in a perioperative setting and demonstrated a large variation in the presentation of symptoms.
| S-EPMC8930253 | 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