Dataset Information

Adverse events during oral colchicine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Stewart S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7020579 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adverse events during oral colchicine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Stewart Sarah S Yang Kevin Chih Kai KCK Atkins Kate K Dalbeth Nicola N Robinson Philip C PC

Arthritis research & therapy 20200213 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. ...[more]

PMID: 32054504

Similar Datasets

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 .

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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine has unique anti-inflammatory properties that may be beneficial in various cardiovascular conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examines this issue. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from inception to June 2014 for RCTs using colchicine in adult patients with cardiac diseases. Results were pooled using random effects. RESULTS:15 RCTs (n?=?3431 patients, median treatment 3 and follow-up 15 months) were included. All but 2 used colchicine 1 mg/day. In 5 trials, n?=?1301) at risk for cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndrome or stroke, post-angioplasty [2 RCTs], or congestive heart failure), colchicine reduced composite cardiovascular outcomes by ~60 % (risk ratio [RR] 0.44, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.69, p?=?0.0004; I(2)?=?0 %) and showed a trend towards lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.23-1.08, p?=?0.08; I(2)?=?0 %). In pericarditis or post-cardiotomy, colchicine decreased recurrent pericarditis or post-pericardiotomy syndrome (RR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.41-0.60, p?<?0.0001; I(2)?=?0 %; 8 RCTs, n?=?1635), and post-pericardiotomy or ablation induced atrial fibrillation (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.51-0.82, p?=?0.0003; I(2)?=?31 %; 4 RCTs, n?=?1118). The most common adverse event was diarrhea. Treatment discontinuation overall and due to adverse events (RR 4.34, 95 % CI 1.70-11.07, p?=?0.002; I(2)?=?29 %; 7 RCTs, 83/790 [10.5 %] vs. 11/697 [1.6 %]) was higher in colchicine-assigned patients. CONCLUSIONS:Current RCT data suggests that colchicine may reduce the composite rate of cardiovascular adverse outcomes in a range of patients with established cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, colchicine reduces rates of recurrent pericarditis, post-pericardiotomy syndrome, and peri-procedural atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery. Further RCTs evaluating the potential of colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events would be of interest.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate immune-related adverse events occurring in clinical trials of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) drugs, compared with control treatments, including chemotherapy, targeted drugs, or placebo. Further we compared the occurrence of immune -related events in patients treated with different anti-PD-1 drugs.Data sourcesRandomized controlled trial (RCT) data were sourced from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials combined with https://clinicaltrials.gov.MethodsRandomized controlled trial of anti-PD-1 drugs compared with control treatments published between January 1, 1970 and March 1,2019, were searched and data on trial patient characteristics, and adverse events extracted, reviewed, and subjected to meta-analysis.ResultsEighteen Randomized controlled trials were included in our study. The Randomized controlled trials compared nivolumab (n = 12), pembrolizumab (n = 6), with chemotherapy (n = 13), targeted drugs (n = 2), or placebo (n = 3). Compared with the control group, the risk of any immune-related adverse events in patients treated with anti-PD-1 drugs was increased (RR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-3.83; P < 0.00001). Of the immune-related adverse events, the risk rates of pneumonitis (risk ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.85-5.18), colitis (2.96;1.62-5.38), hypophysitis(4.79;1.54-14.89), hypothyroidism(7.87;5.36-11.57), hyperthyroidism (7.03;4.35-11.34), rash (1.58;0.98-2.54), pruritus (2.28; 1.38-3.76), and hepatitis (9.31;2.18-39.85) were increased by anti-PD-1 drugs. Further, the risk of immune-related adverse events was similar for patients treated with pembrolizumab and nivolumab (P = 0.14).ConclusionsIn addition to previously reported organ-specific immune-related adverse events, we found that the risk of hyperthyroidism was also increased, in anit-PD-1-treated patients, relative to control treatments. The risk of total immune-related adverse events, was similar for pembrolizumab and nivolumab.

Dataset Information

Adverse events during oral colchicine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Adverse events during oral colchicine use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets