Dataset Information

Observed and expected serious adverse event rates in randomised clinical trials for hypertension: an observational study comparing trials that do and do not focus on older people.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Representativeness of antihypertensive drug trials is uncertain, as many trials recruit few or no older people. Some trials specifically recruit older participants to address this. Here, we assess the representativeness of trials focusing on older people by comparing the rates of serious adverse events in these trials with the rates in trials of a general adult population (ie, standard trials), and comparing these findings to the rate of hospitalisations and deaths in people with hypertension starting a similar treatment in routine clinical practice.

Methods

For this observational study, we identified randomised controlled trials (phase 2/3, 3, or 4) of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) drugs for hypertension registered from 1999 onwards with ClinicalTrials.gov. Serious adverse events are routinely included in trial reports and are predominantly accounted for by all-cause hospitalisations and deaths. We compared serious adverse event rates in older-people trials (minimum inclusion age ≥60 years) and standard trials (minimum inclusion age <60 years) using Poisson regression models adjusted for trial characteristics (drug type, comparison type, phase, and outcome type). We identified a community cohort of 56 036 adults with hypertension commencing similar drugs to obtain an expected rate of emergency or urgent hospitalisations or deaths, and compared this rate to observed serious adverse event rates in each trial, adjusted for age and sex. For standard trials and for older-people trials, we calculated the standardised ratio of the expected to the observed rate of serious adverse events using Poisson regression models.

Findings

We included 110 trials, of which 11 (10%) were older-people trials and 99 (90%) were standard trials. Older-people trials had a higher rate of serious adverse events than did standard trials (median events per person per year 0·18 [IQR 0·12-0·29] vs 0·11 [0·08-0·18]; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·76 [95% CI 1·01-3·03]). The hospitalisation and death rate in the community for those taking RAAS antihypertensives was much greater than the rate of serious adverse events reported in standard trials (standardised ratio [SR] 4·23, 95% CI 3·51-5·09) and older-people trials (4·76, 2·89-7·86), adjusting for age and sex. The magnitude of risk increase for serious adverse events in community patients taking RAAS did not differ when comparing older-people and standard trials (ratio of SRs 1·13, 95% CI 0·66-1·92).

Interpretation

Trials report substantially fewer serious adverse events than expected from rates of hospitalisations and deaths among similar-aged people receiving equivalent treatments in the community. Serious adverse event rates might be a useful metric to assess trial representativeness. Clinicians should be cautious when applying trial recommendations to older people, even when trials focus on older participants.

Funding

Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.

SUBMITTER: Hanlon P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8245327 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design?Systematic review. Objectives?(1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods?A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ?3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results?RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions?Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

Project description:ImportancePatient safety is a US national priority, yet lacks a comprehensive assessment of progress over the past decade.ObjectiveTo determine the change in the rate of adverse events in hospitalized patients.Design, setting, and participantsThis serial cross-sectional study used data from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System from 2010 to 2019 to assess in-hospital adverse events in patients. The study included 244 542 adult patients hospitalized in 3156 US acute care hospitals across 4 condition groups from 2010 through 2019: acute myocardial infarction (17%), heart failure (17%), pneumonia (21%), and major surgical procedures (22%); and patients hospitalized from 2012 through 2019 for all other conditions (22%).ExposuresAdults aged 18 years or older hospitalized during each included calendar year.Main outcomes and measuresInformation on adverse events (abstracted from medical records) included 21 measures across 4 adverse event domains: adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, adverse events after a procedure, and general adverse events (hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls). The outcomes were the total change over time for the observed and risk-adjusted adverse event rates in the subpopulations.ResultsThe study sample included 190 286 hospital discharges combined in the 4 condition-based groups of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures (mean age, 68.0 [SD, 15.9] years; 52.6% were female) and 54 256 hospital discharges for the group including all other conditions (mean age, 57.7 [SD, 20.7] years; 59.8% were female) from 3156 acute care hospitals across the US. From 2010 to 2019, the total change was from 218 to 139 adverse events per 1000 discharges for acute myocardial infarction, from 168 to 116 adverse events per 1000 discharges for heart failure, from 195 to 119 adverse events per 1000 discharges for pneumonia, and from 204 to 130 adverse events per 1000 discharges for major surgical procedures. From 2012 to 2019, the rate of adverse events for all other conditions remained unchanged at 70 adverse events per 1000 discharges. After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the annual change represented by relative risk in all adverse events per 1000 discharges was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.94) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for heart failure, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95) for pneumonia, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94) for major surgical procedures, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) for all other conditions. The risk-adjusted adverse event rates declined significantly in all patient groups for adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, and general adverse events. For patients in the major surgical procedures group, the risk-adjusted rates of events after a procedure declined significantly.Conclusions and relevanceIn the US between 2010 and 2019, there was a significant decrease in the rates of adverse events abstracted from medical records for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures and there was a significant decrease in the adjusted rates of adverse events between 2012 and 2019 for all other conditions. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which these trends represent a change in patient safety.

Project description:BackgroundSerious cardiovascular adverse events (SCAEs) associated with intravenous sedatives remain poorly characterized.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare SCAE incidence, types, and mortality between intravenous benzodiazepines (i.e., diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam), dexmedetomidine, and propofol in the USA over 8 years regardless of the clinical setting where it was administered.MethodsThe Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System was searched between 2004 and 2011 using the Evidex® platform from Advera Health Analytics, Inc. to identify all reports that included one or more of ten different SCAEs (package insert incidence???1%) and where an intravenous benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine, or propofol was the primary suspected drug.ResultsAmong the 2326 Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System cases reported, 394 (16.9%) were related to a SCAE. The presence of a SCAE (vs. a non-SCAE) is associated with higher mortality (34 vs. 8%, p?<?0.001). The percentage of cases with one or more SCAE, the case mortality rate (%), and the incidence of each SCAE (per 106 days of sedative exposure), respectively, were benzodiazepines (14, 26, 13) [diazepam (13, 23, 31); lorazepam (15, 43, 14); midazolam (14, 20, 11)]; dexmedetomidine (40, 15, 13); and propofol (17, 39, 7). Propofol (vs. either a benzodiazepine or dexmedetomidine) was associated with more total SCAEs (268 vs. 126, p?<?0.001) but a lower incidence (per 106 days of sedative exposure) of SCAE (7 vs. 13, p?=?0.0001) and cardiac arrest [6.3 (benzodiazepine) vs. 6.7 (dexmedetomidine) vs. 1.4 (propofol), p?<?0.0001].ConclusionsSerious cardiac adverse events account for nearly one-fifth of intravenous sedative Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System reports. These SCAEs appear to be associated with greater mortality than non-cardiac serious adverse events. Serious cardiac events may be more prevalent with either benzodiazepines or dexmedetomidine than propofol.