Dataset Information

The adverse effects of bisphosphonates in breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.

Methods

We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.

Findings

We identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.

SUBMITTER: Jackson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7864400 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The adverse effects of bisphosphonates in breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Jackson Christopher C Freeman Alexandra L J ALJ Szlamka Zśofia Z Spiegelhalter David J DJ

PloS one 20210205 2

<h4>Background</h4>Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments ...[more]

PMID: 33544765

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Trastuzumab is a valuable therapy option for women with ERBB2(HER2)+ breast cancer tumours, often used in combination with chemotherapy and alongside other therapies. It is known to have adverse effects, but these have proved difficult to separate from the effects of other concurrent therapies patients are usually taking. This study aims to assess the adverse effects specifically attributable to trastuzumab, and whether they vary by patient subgroup or concurrent therapies. Methods As registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019146541), we used previous systematic reviews as well as the clinicaltrials.gov registry to identify randomised controlled trials in breast cancer which compared treatment regimes with and without trastuzumab. Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Data was extracted from those which had, as of July 2022, reported adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). A standard random-effects meta-analysis was performed for each outcome independently. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age or tumour characteristics, or by use of trastuzumab concurrently with hormone therapy, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, HERA. Results 79 relevant trials were found, of which 20 contained comparable arms of trastuzumab-containing therapy and corresponding matched therapy without trastuzumab. This allowed a comparison of 8669 patients receiving trastuzumab versus 9556 receiving no trastuzumab, which gave a list of 25 statistically and clinically significant adverse effects related to trastuzumab alone: unspecified pain, asthenia, nasopharyngitis, skin disorders (mainly rash), dyspepsia, paraesthesia, infections (often respiratory), increased lacrimation, diarrhoea, myalgia, oedema (limb/peripheral), fever, nose bleeds, cardiac events, insomnia, cough, back pain, dyspnoea, chills, dizziness or vertigo, hypertension, congestive heart failure, increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase, gastrointestinal issues and dehydration. Analysis of individual patient-level data from 5102 patients suggested that nausea is slightly more likely for women taking trastuzumab who are ER+ /also taking hormone therapy than for those who are ER-/not taking hormone therapy; no other potential treatment-subgroup interactions were detected. We found no evidence for significantly increased rates of neutropenia, anaemia or lymphopenia in patients on trastuzumab-containing regimes compared to those on comparable regimes without trastuzumab. Conclusions This meta-analysis should allow clinicians and patients to better identify and quantify the potential adverse effects of adding trastuzumab to their treatment regime for breast cancer, and hence inform their decision-making. However, limitations include serious risk of bias due to heterogeneity in reporting of the outcomes and the open-label nature of the trials.

Project description:There is substantial evidence that mortality increases in low temperatures. Less is known about the role of prolonged cold periods denoted as cold spells.We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence on the adverse health effects of cold spells in varying climates.Four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for all years and languages available. "Cold spell" was defined as an event below a temperature threshold lasting for a minimum duration of 2 days. Of 1,527 identified articles, 26 satisfied our eligibility criteria for the systematic review, and 9 were eligible for meta-analyses. The articles were grouped by the three main study questions into Overall-effect Group, Added-effect Group, and Temperature-change-effect Group.Based on random-effects models in the meta-analyses, cold spells were associated with increased mortality from all or all nonaccidental causes (summary rate ratio = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17 based on 9 estimates from five studies), cardiovascular diseases (1.11; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.19; 12 estimates from eight studies), and respiratory diseases (1.21; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.51; 8 estimates from four studies). Estimated associations were stronger for people ? 65 years of age (1.06; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.12) than for people 0-64 years of age (1.01; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Study-specific effect estimates from a limited number of studies suggested an increased morbidity related to cold spells, but it was not possible to quantitatively summarize the evidence.Cold spells are associated with increased mortality rates in populations around the world. The body of evidence suggests that cold spells also have other adverse health effects. There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies, which should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results.Ryti NR, Guo Y, Jaakkola JJ. 2016. Global association of cold spells and adverse health effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 124:12-22; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408104.

Project description:Materials and methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and VIP up to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting nonhormonal hot flash treatments for breast cancer survivors were included. Primary outcome measurements were hot flash frequency and hot flash score of posttreatment. The methodological quality of each study was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool.Results16 RCTs involving 2,349 participants were included. The nonhormonal therapies used in the included studies were classified as follows: lifestyle changes, mind-body techniques, dietary/supplements, SSRIs/SNRIs, other medications, and other therapies. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that the general effect of nonhormonal management was statistically more effective than no treatment/placebo/sham in reducing hot flash frequency (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.06]; P=0.03)) and hot flash score (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.08]). For hot flash frequency, results from the NMA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between any two of the nonhormonal treatments. Another NMA result indicated that acupuncture (other therapies) was 16.05 points more effective in reducing hot flash scores than no treatment/waitlist (SMD = -16.05, 95% CI [-30.2, -1.99]). These results were statistically significant. Acupuncture was also ranked the optimal nonhormonal therapy for both hot flash frequency and hot flash score. The safety analysis showed that there were few related adverse events during acupuncture and that drug related adverse reactions could have also occurred in studies using drug interventions.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis comparing nonhormonal treatments suggested that acupuncture might be more effective in improving hot flashes for breast cancer survivors. A pronounced placebo response was found during hot flash treatments. The evidence of safety for nonhormonal therapies was also insufficient. Therefore, at present, we cannot make confirmative recommendations of nonhormonal hot flash management for breast cancer survivors. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018082008).

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have investigated the association between the use of bisphosphonates and the development of breast cancer, which presented controversial results. Thus, this meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the current evidence of the association of bisphosphonate use with breast cancer risk.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to March 2019 by two researches, who independently selected trials, retrieved relevant data, and assessed study quality. The summary relative risk (RR) for the use of bisphosphonates on the risks of developing breast cancer was calculated using a random-effect model.ResultsThe present meta-analysis, which included four case-control studies, involving 55052 breast cancer cases, and seven retrospective cohort studies, involving 14641 breast cancer cases, assessed the effect of bisphosphonates on breast cancer risk. The random-effect model meta-analysis found a reduced risk of breast cancer with exposure to bisphosphonates with pooled RR of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 0.94). The short-term use of bisphosphonates (<1 year) did not render significant alteration (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.03), while a significant 26% risk reduction of breast cancer was noted with long-term use (>1 year) (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.90). A protective effect of bisphosphonates was shown in contralateral breast cancer (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.84). In terms of the type of bisphosphonates, a significant inverse relationship was noted for etidronate, with pooled RR of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.96).ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggested that the use of bisphosphonates was associated with reduced risk of breast cancer, including contralateral breast cancer. Compared to other types of bisphosphonates, only etidronate showed a significant inverse relationship. Additionally, the long-term use (>1 year) of bisphosphonates was more significant in lowering breast cancer risk. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this association. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018105024) (registered on 29 August 2018).

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants are widely used in the treatment of chronic pain. Applied doses are lower than those needed to unfold an antidepressive effect. While efficacy of antidepressants for chronic pain has been reported in large randomized-controlled trials (RCT), there is inconsistent data on adverse effects and tolerability. We aimed at synthesizing data from RCT to explore adverse effect profiles and tolerability of antidepressants for treatment of chronic pain.MethodsSystematic literature research and meta-analyses were performed regarding side effects and safety of different antidepressants in the treatment of chronic pain according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The National Center for Biotechnology Information library and MEDLINE were searched. Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in quantitative data synthesis.ResultsOut of 1,975 screened articles, 33 papers published between 1995 and 2015 were included in our review and 23 studies were included in the meta-analyses. A higher risk for adverse effects compared to placebo was observed in all antidepressants included in our analyses, except nortriptyline. The most prevalent adverse effects were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation. Amitriptyline, mirtazapine, desipramine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and nortriptyline showed the highest placebo effect-adjusted risk of adverse effects. Risk for withdrawal due to adverse effects was highest in desipramine (risk ratio: 4.09, 95%-confidence interval [1.31; 12.82]) followed by milnacipran, venlafaxine, and duloxetine. The most common adverse effects under treatment with antidepressants were dry mouth, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation followed by palpitations, sweating, and drowsiness. However, overall tolerability was high. Each antidepressant showed distinct risk profiles of adverse effects.ConclusionOur synthesized data analysis confirmed overall tolerability of low-dose antidepressants for the treatment of chronic pain and revealed drug specific risk profiles. This encompassing characterization of adverse effect profiles might be useful in defining multimodal treatment regimens for chronic pain which also consider patients' comorbidities and co-medication.

Dataset Information

The adverse effects of bisphosphonates in breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

The adverse effects of bisphosphonates in breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets