Dataset for amiodarone adverse events compared to placebo using data from randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Moroi MK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6909169 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Dataset for amiodarone adverse events compared to placebo using data from randomized controlled trials.
Moroi Morgan K MK Ruzieh Mohammed M Aboujamous Nader M NM Ghahramani Mehrdad M Naccarelli Gerald V GV Mandrola John J Foy Andrew J AJ
Data in brief 20191118
The dataset presented here provides a detailed description of the adverse events of amiodarone versus placebo using data from 43 randomized controlled trials. Two authors (M.M., M.R.) independently extracted the data. The dataset also includes baseline patient characteristics, amiodarone loading and maintenance doses, as well as forest plots describing the relative risk (RR) of developing an adverse event related to the pulmonary, thyroid, hepatic, cardiac, skin, gastrointestinal, neurological, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has proven clinical benefit in B-cell malignancies; however, atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported in 6-16% of ibrutinib patients. We pooled data from 1505 chronic lymphocytic leukemia and mantle cell lymphoma patients enrolled in four large, randomized, controlled studies to characterize AF with ibrutinib and its management. AF incidence was 6.5% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 4.8, 8.5] for ibrutinib at 16.6-months versus 1.6% (95%CI: 0.8, 2.8) for comparator and 10.4% (95%CI: 8.4, 12.9) at the 36-month follow up; estimated cumulative incidence: 13.8% (95%CI: 11.2, 16.8). Ibrutinib treatment, prior history of AF and age 65 years or over were independent risk factors for AF. Multiple AF events were more common with ibrutinib (44.9%; comparator, 16.7%) among patients with AF. Most (85.7%) patients with AF did not discontinue ibrutinib, and more than half received common anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications on study. Low-grade bleeds were more frequent with ibrutinib, but serious bleeds were uncommon (ibrutinib, 2.9%; comparator, 2.0%). Although the AF rate among older non-trial patients with comorbidities is likely underestimated by this dataset, these results suggest that AF among clinical trial patients is generally manageable without ibrutinib discontinuation (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01578707, 01722487, 01611090, 01646021).
| S-EPMC5622864 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFor safety assessment in clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are reported for the drug under evaluation and compared with AEs in the placebo group. Little is known about the nature of the AEs associated with clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the extent to which these can be traced to nocebo effects, where negative treatment-related expectations favor their occurrence.MethodsIn our systematic review, we compared the rates of solicited AEs in the active and placebo groups of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by the Western pharmaceutical regulatory agencies.We implemented a search strategy to identify trial-III studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through the PubMed database. We adopted the PRISMA Statement to perform the study selection and the data collection and identified three trial: two mRNA-based (38403 participants) and one adenovirus type (6736 participants).FindingsRelative risks showed that the occurrence of AEs reported in the vaccine groups was higher compared with the placebo groups. The most frequently AEs in both groups were fatigue, headache, local pain, as injection site reactions, and myalgia. In particular, for first doses in placebo recipients, fatigue was reported in 29% and 27% in BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively, and in 21% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Headache was reported in 27% in both mRNA groups and in 24% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Myalgia was reported in 10% and 14% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively) and in 13% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Local pain was reported in 12% and 17% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively), and in 17% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. These AEs are more common in the younger population and in the first dose of placebo recipients of the mRNA vaccines.InterpretationOur results are in agreement with the expectancy theory of nocebo effects and suggest that the AEs associated with COVID-19 vaccines may be related to the nocebo effect.FundingFondazione CRT - Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, IT (grant number 66346, "GAIA-MENTE" 2019).
| S-EPMC8553263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The adverse events (AEs) of oxycodone in cancer-related pain were controversial, so we conducted a meta-analysis to determine it. PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang database, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the reference of included studies were searched to recognize pertinent studies. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all AEs were all extracted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate pooled RRs and 95% CIs. Power calculation was performed using macro embedded in SAS software after all syntheses were completed. We identified 11 eligible trials involving 1211 patients: 604 patients included in oxycodone group and 607 patients involved in control group. Our quantitative analysis included 8 AEs, and the pooled analyses indicated that oxycodone compared with other opioids in cancer-related pain were not significantly decreased RRs of all AEs (dizziness RR?=?0.94, 95% CI: 0.69-1.30, Z?=?0.35, P?=?0.72; nausea RR?=?0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.07, Z?=?1.26, P?=?0.21; vomiting RR?=?0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, Z?=?0.9, P?=?0.37; sleepiness RR?=?0.86, 95% CI: 0.38-1.36, Z?=?0.36, P?=?0.72; constipation RR?=?0.98, 95% CI: 0.81-1.19, Z?=?0.21, P?=?0.83; anorexia RR?=?0.97, 95% CI?=?0.58-1.62, Z?=?0.11, P?=?0.91; pruritus RR?=?0.76, 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, Z?=?1.01, P?=?0.31; dysuria RR?=?0.33, 95% CI: 0.07-1.62, Z?=?1.36, P?=?0.1)]. The subgroup analysis shown that Ox controlled-release (CR) had less sleepiness compared with MS-contin (Mc) CR (RR?=?0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, P?=?0.02). The power analysis suggests that all AEs have low statistical power. The present meta-analysis detected that no statistically significant difference were found among oxycodone and other opioids in all AEs, but Ox CR may had less sleepiness compared with Mc CR when subgroup analysis were conducted.
| S-EPMC4839832 | biostudies-other
Project description:Varenicline is an efficacious smoking-cessation drug. However, previous meta-analyses provide conflicting results regarding its cardiovascular safety. The publication of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides an opportunity to reassess this potential adverse drug reaction. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs that compare varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation. RCTs reporting cardiovascular serious adverse events and/or all-cause mortality during the treatment period or within 30 days of treatment discontinuation were eligible for inclusion. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were generated by using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Thirty-eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria (N=12 706). Events were rare in both varenicline (57/7213) and placebo (43/5493) arms. No difference was observed for cardiovascular serious adverse events when comparing varenicline with placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72-1.49). Similar findings were obtained when examining cardiovascular (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57-1.89) and noncardiovascular patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64-1.64). Deaths were rare in both varenicline (11/7213) and placebo (9/5493) arms. Although 95% CIs were wide, pooling of all-cause mortality found no difference between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50-1.52), including when stratified by participants with (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40-3.83) and without (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40-1.48) cardiovascular disease. We found no evidence that varenicline increases the rate of cardiovascular serious adverse events. Results were similar among those with and without cardiovascular disease. Given varenicline's efficacy as a smoking cessation drug and the long-term cardiovascular benefits of cessation, it should continue to be prescribed for smoking cessation.
| S-EPMC4802486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn order to evaluate the safety of acupuncture in China objectively, we investigated the adverse events associated with acupuncture based on three multicentre randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety of acupuncture, identifying the common types of acupuncture adverse events, and analysing the related risk factors for their occurrence.MethodsThis observational study included patients who received acupuncture from three multicentre RCTs respectively for migraine, functional dyspepsia and Bell's palsy. The 1968 patients and their acupuncturists documented adverse events associated with acupuncture after treatment. We collected data about adverse events due to acupuncture treatment from their case report forms. We analysed the incidence and details of the adverse effects, and studied the risk factors for acupuncture adverse events with non-conditional logistic regression analysis.ResultsAmong the 1968 patients, 74 patients (3.76%) suffered at least one adverse event throughout the treatment period. We did not observe the occurrence of serious adverse events. 73 patients with adverse events recovered within 2 weeks through effective treatment such as physiotherapy or self-treatment. A total of 3 patients withdrew because of adverse events. There were 9 types of adverse events related to acupuncture, including subcutaneous haematoma, bleeding, skin bruising and needle site pain. Subcutaneous haematoma and haemorrhage in the needling points were the most common adverse events. Age and gender were related to the occurrence of acupuncture adverse events. The older the patients were, the higher the risk of adverse events was. In addition, male patients had slightly higher risk of an adverse event than female patients.ConclusionsAcupuncture is a safe therapy with low risk of adverse events in clinical practice. The risk factors for adverse events (AEs) were related to the patients' gender and age and the local anatomical structure of the acupoints. AEs could be reduced and mitigated by improving the medical environment, ensuring a high technical level of the acupuncture practitioners and establishing a good relationship of mutual trust between doctor and patient.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00599586, NCT00599677, NCT00608660.
| S-EPMC3072923 | 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:ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine on the risk of falls, syncope, and related events, defined as fracture and accidental injury.DesignMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (no language restriction, through July 2009), and manual search.SettingCommunity and nursing homes.ParticipantsParticipants in fifty-four placebo-controlled randomized trials and extension studies of ChEIs and memantine that reported falls, syncope, and related events in cognitively impaired older adults.MeasurementsFalls, syncope, fracture, and accidental injury.ResultsChEI use was associated with greater risk of syncope (odds ratio (OR)=1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.02-2.30) than placebo but not with other events (falls: OR=0.88, 95% CI=0.74-1.04; fracture: OR=1.39, 95% CI=0.75-2.56; accidental injury: OR=1.13, 95% CI=0.87-1.45). Memantine use was associated with fewer fractures (OR=0.21, 95% CI=0.05-0.85) but not with other events (falls: OR=0.92, 95% CI=0.72-1.18; syncope: OR=1.04, 95% CI=0.35-3.04; accidental injury: OR=0.80, 95% CI=0.56-1.12). There was no differential effect according to type and severity of cognitive impairment, residential status, or length of follow-up, although because of underreporting and small number of events, a potential benefit or risk cannot be excluded.ConclusionChEIs may increase the risk of syncope, with no effects on falls, fracture, or accidental injury in cognitively impaired older adults. Memantine may have a favorable effect on fracture, with no effects on other events. More research is needed to confirm the reduction in fractures observed for memantine.
| S-EPMC3260523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPirfenidone (PFD) is a novel antifibrotic agent approved for patients with pulmonary fibrosis. However, there are concerns regarding toxicity of the drug. In this meta-analysis, we analyzed the adverse events (AEs) of PFD for the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials published between January 1999 and October 2011. Data extracted from literature were analyzed with Review manager 5.0.24.ResultsThe results of six randomized controlled trials (1073 participants) revealed that the number of individuals who discontinued PFD therapy was significantly higher than patients receiving placebo. The PFD group had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal (nausea, dyspepsia, diarrhea, and anorexia), neurological (dizziness and fatigue), and dermatological (photosensitivity and rash) AEs compared to the placebo group.ConclusionsPFD used for the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis is not so safe or well-tolerated. Notably, gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological adverse effects were more common in patients receiving PFD therapy, and therefore appropriate precaution is needed.
| S-EPMC3467250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Several reports have associated the placebo effect with objective response and improvement of a clinical condition in oncology, but only a few studies have analyzed the adverse events (AEs) in the placebo groups of the clinical trials. Objective:To determine the incidence of placebo AEs reported in randomized clinical trials of modern cancer drugs in the adjuvant setting. Data Sources:Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, a systematic literature search of English-language publications from January 1, 2000, through April 15, 2018, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). The following search terms were used to retrieve all trials from the PubMed library: adjuvant, maintenance, consolidation, and placebo, in addition to specific cancer type-related keywords. Study Selection:A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 design was mandatory for study inclusion. Only studies enrolling patients who had undergone macroscopically complete resections were included. No other anticancer treatments in addition to placebo were allowed in the control group. Only trials involving a targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase, BRAF, or MEK inhibitors) or immunotherapy-related drugs were included. Trials using chemotherapy, interferon, and endocrine therapy were excluded. Two authors (D.H.E. and F.D.W.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Data were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the proportion of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in the included studies. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in the placebo groups. Results:Of 731 studies screened, 10 eligible trials were found including 4 tumor types (melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and renal cell carcinoma). Overall, 11?143 patients (6270 [56.3%] in the treatment group with mean [SD] age of 55.6 [4.2] years and 4873 patients [43.7%] in the placebo group with mean [SD] age of 55.9 [4.3] years) were included. The mean incidence of any-grade placebo AEs was 85.1% (95% CI, 79.2%-91.0%). The most frequent (mean [SD]) grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in patients were hypertension (2.8% [2.2%]), fatigue (1.0% [0.9%]), and diarrhea (0.8% [0.6%]). The overall, random-effects pooled incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs was 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%), with a high level of heterogeneity (I2?=?86%). Frequency of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs was found to be correlated in the treatment and placebo groups (??=?0.7; P?=?.03). Mean study drug discontinuation owing to placebo AEs was 3.9% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.2%). Conclusions and Relevance:Placebo administration was associated with a substantial incidence of grade 3 to 4 placebo AEs in modern cancer adjuvant trials. This finding should be considered by investigators, sponsors, regulatory authorities, and patient support groups.
| S-EPMC6324542 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.Methods and findingsSearches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.ConclusionsEmpirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC3086872 | biostudies-literature