Dataset Information

Aromatase inhibitors and risk of cardiovascular events in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular events (CVEs) was considered as one of the primary cause to reduce the quality of life in breast cancer patients with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) treatment, which has not been sufficiently addressed. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between risk of CVEs and AIs in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Included studies were obtained from the databases of Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and reference lists. The main outcome measures were overall incidence, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Furthermore, the association and the risk differences among different tumor types, AIs,ages,or treatment regimens were conducted. Fixed-effect or random-effect models were applied in the statistical analyses according to the heterogeneity. Our analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Results

Seventeen studies, which included 44,411 subjects, were included in our analyses. The overall incidence of CVEs in AIs group was 13.02% (95% CI: 8.15-20.17%) and almost all of the high-grade CVEs occurred in patients treated with AIs. The pooled ORs of CVEs was 0.9940 (95% CI: 0.8545-1.1562). Under sub-group analysis, the incidence of CVEs related to exemestane was higher than that of controls (OR = 1.1564, 95% CI: 1.0656-1.2549), but no statistical differences in risk of CVEs were found in other sub-group analysis. No evidence of publication bias was found for incidence of CVEs in our meta-analysis by a funnel plot.

Conclusions

These results suggest that patients with breast cancer treated with AIs do not have a significant risk of developing CVEs in comparison with the controls, and exemestane might not be considered as the alternative AI to the breast cancer patients from the perspective of CVEs. Further studies are recommended to investigate this association and the risk differences among different tumor types, AIs or treatment regimens.

SUBMITTER: He Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6820915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe present comparative meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the cardiovascular events of regorafenib in patients with solid tumors.MethodsEligible studies from MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Clinical key, EBSCO publishing and Ovid, which had reported cardiovascular adverse events potentially caused by regorafenib were absorbed. Data of clinical characteristics and cardiovascular events including hypertension, hemorrhage, thrombosis, and heart failure were extracted from selected literatures for the final analysis. Pooled analysis of cardiovascular adverse events was developed by relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with software STATA 13.0 and RevMan 5.3.ResultsThirty studies including 3813 patients were fit into analysis. The incidences of cardiovascular events of all-grade were: hypertension, 36.8% (95% CI, 29.8%-43.8%), hemorrhage, 8.6% (95% CI, 3.2%-14%), thrombosis, 1.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.8%), and heart failure, 2.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.6%). The incidences of cardiovascular events of high-grade were: hypertension, 9.9% (95% CI, 7.4%-12.4%), hemorrhage, 1.2% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.2%), thrombosis, 1.6% (95% CI, 0.2%-3.4%), and heart failure, 2.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.6%). The RRs and their 95% CIs of all-grade cardiovascular events among patients treated with regorafenib were: hypertension, 4.10 (95% CI, 3.07-5.46; P?<?.00001), hemorrhage, 2.71 (95% CI, 1.45-5.08; P?=?.002), thrombosis, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.49-3.27; P?=?.62), and heart failure, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.16-3.94; P?=?.77). The RRs and their 95% CIs of high-grade cardiovascular events among patients treated with regorafenib were: hypertension, 5.82 (95% CI, 3.46-9.78; P?<?.00001), hemorrhage, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.50-1.61; P?=?.72), thrombosis, 1.28 (95% CI, 0.48-3.41; P?=?.62), and heart failure, 1.15 (95% CI, 0.23-5.69; P?=?.86), respectively.ConclusionThe present meta-analysis has demonstrated that regorafenib is associated with an increasing risk of hypertension at all-grade and high-grade, as well as hemorrhage at all-grade. Adequate awareness of cardiovascular adverse events of regorafenib should be established for clinicians.

Project description:ImportanceCardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) after treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with melanoma remain incompletely characterized.ObjectiveTo determine the association of BRAF and MEK inhibitor treatment with CVAEs in patients with melanoma compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.Data sourcesPubMed, 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 selectionRandomized 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 synthesisData 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsOverall, 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 < .001), and arterial hypertension (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.97; P = .005) compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. The RRs for myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and QTc prolongation were similar between the groups. These results were consistent when assessing high-grade CVAEs (left ventricular ejection fraction: RR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.36-5.73; P = .005; I2 = 29%; high-grade arterial hypertension: RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.14-2.08; P = .005; I2 = 0%), but RRs for high-grade pulmonary embolism were similar between groups. A higher risk of a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction was associated with patients with a mean age younger than 55 years (RR, 26.50; 95% CI, 3.58-196.10; P = .001), and the associated risk of pulmonary embolism was higher for patients with a mean follow-up time longer than 15 months (RR, 7.70; 95% CI, 1.40-42.12; P = .02).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.

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:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of Physical Therapies (PTs) on improvement in psychosomatic symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer patients.Data sourcesSeven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wangfang, VIP, and China Biology Medicine disc databases) were systematically searched from the database inception through May 18, 2021.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared acupuncture or exercise with a sham control or usual care for the treatment of aromatase inhibitors (AIs)-related psychosomatic symptoms and QOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The effect size was calculated via random-effects modeling. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Main outcomes and measuresThe score of pain was measured with BPI scale and Western Ontario and the McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) scale. Emotional state was measured with Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). The QOL score was measured by self-reported measurements, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scale.ResultsEleven RCTs (with 830 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 10 RCTs (with 798 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Results showed acupuncture significantly reduced worst pain scores (P < 0.00001, I 2 = 83.5%) [SMD = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.51, -0.11)], but the effect of exercise therapies was not significant in overall change in worst pain scores (P =0.006, I 2 = 72.3%) [SMD = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.76, 0.16)]. Both acupuncture and exercise resulted in little to no difference in overall change in HADS-A subscale (P = 0.026<0.05, I 2 = 79.8%) [WMD = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.44, 3.03)], PSQI subscale (P = 0.488, I 2 = 0%) [WMD = 0.98, 95% CI (-0.57, 2.53)], and FACIT-Fatigue subscale (P = 0.022<0.05, I 2 = 81.0%) [WMD = 1.6, 95% CI (-5.75, 8.94)]. Exercise (compared with usual care) was associated with improving overall change in health-related QOL (subscales of SF-36 tool) (P = 0, I 2 = 72.1%) [WMD = 7.97, 95% CI (5.68, 10.25)] and cancer-specific QOL (subscales of FACT-G tool) (P = 0.304, I 2 = 16%) [WMD = 1.16, 95% CI (0.34, 1.97)].Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that based on moderate-level evidence, acupuncture was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, and exercise might improve QOL in breast cancer patients treated with AIs. However, in psychosomatic symptoms such as anxiety, sleep disturbance, and fatigue, acupuncture and exercise training did not result in significant improvements.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many clinical trials have shown the efficacy of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in the management of breast cancer (BC). There is growing evidence that CYP19A1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with clinical response (CR) and adverse effects (AEs) among BC patients treated with AIs. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between CYP19A1 polymorphisms and AI treatment in BC patients. METHODS:A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the association between CYP19A1 variants and treatment response among BC patients. RESULTS:A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. There was significant variation among the populations studied and the SNPs and outcomes investigated. A meta-analysis was only possible for the evaluation of SNP rs4646 vs. the wild-type variant with respect to time to progression (TTP) among metastatic BC patients treated with AI. TTP was significantly increased in patients with the rs4646 variant compared with the wild-type gene (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51 [95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.78], P = 0.002). Seven studies analyzed the association between AEs with different polymorphisms of CYP19A1. Although there was a statistically significant association with musculoskeletal adverse events (rs934635, rs60271534, rs700518rs, and haplotype M_3_5) and with vasomotor symptoms (rs934635, rs1694189, rs7176005, and haplotype M_5_3) in individual studies, similar associations were not observed in further studies. No statistically significant association between musculoskeletal AEs and SNPs rs4646, rs10046, rs727479, and rs1062033 was found. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that the presence of the rs4646 variant may be a predictive factor of the benefit of AI treatment for BC. The effects of CYP19A1 polymorphisms on clinical outcomes were most often detected in individual studies, suggesting that longer-term studies will better clarify these associations. Additional studies are needed to clarify the predictive value of other SNPs and whether CYP19A1 genotyping should be used to guide AI treatment.