scholarly journals Updating Insights into Rosiglitazone and Cardiovascular Risk through Shared Data: Individual Patient- and Summary-Level Meta-Analyses

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D Wallach ◽  
Kun Wang ◽  
Audrey D Zhang ◽  
Deanna Cheng ◽  
Holly K Grossetta Nardini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Myocardial Infarctions ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Continuity Corrections ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of rosiglitazone therapy on cardiovascular risk and mortality using multiple data sources and varying analytical approaches.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Data sourcesGlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) and Study Register platforms, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2019.Study selection criteriaRandomized, controlled, phase II-IV clinical trials comparing rosiglitazone with any control for at least 24 weeks in adults.Data extraction and synthesisFor analyses of trials for which individual patient-level data (IPD) were available, we examined a composite of the following events as our primary outcome: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular-related deaths, and non-cardiovascular-related deaths. As secondary analyses, these four events were examined independently. When also including trials for which IPD were not available, we examined myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related deaths, ascertained from summary-level data. Multiple meta-analyses were conducted, accounting for trials with zero events in one or all arms with two different continuity corrections (i.e., 0.5 constant and treatment arm comparator continuity correction), to calculate odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThere were 33 eligible trials for which IPD were available (21156 participants) through GSK’s CSDR. We also identified 103 additional trials for which IPD were not available from which we ascertained myocardial infarctions (23683 patients) and 103 trials for cardiovascular-related deaths (22772 patients). Among trials for which IPD were available, we identified a greater number of myocardial infarctions and fewer cardiovascular-related deaths reported in the IPD as compared to the summary-level data. When limited to trials for which IPD were available and accounting for trials with zero-events in only one arm using a constant continuity correction of 0.5, patients treated with rosiglitazone had a 39% increased risk of a composite event compared with controls (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.68). When examined separately, the odds ratios for myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular-related death, and non-cardiovascular-related death were 1.25 (0.99 to 1.60), 1.60 (1.20 to 2.14), 1.18 (0.64 to 2.17), and 1.13 (0.58 to 2.20), respectively. When all trials for which IPD were and were not available were combined for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related deaths, the odds ratios were attenuated (1.13 (0.92 to 1.38) and 1.10 (0.73 to 1.65), respectively). Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals were broadly consistent when analyses were repeated including trials with zero events across all arms using constant continuity corrections of 0.5 or treatment arm continuity corrections.ConclusionsResults of this comprehensive meta-analysis aggregating a multitude of trials and analyzed using a variety of statistical techniques suggest that rosiglitazone is consistently associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, likely driven by heart failure events, whose interpretation is complicated by varying magnitudes of myocardial infarction risk that were attenuated through aggregation of summary-level data in addition to IPD.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/4yvp2/What is already known on this topic-Since 2007, there have been multiple meta-analyses, using various analytic approaches, that have reported conflicting findings related to rosiglitazone’s cardiovascular risk.-Previous meta-analyses have relied primarily on summary-level data, and did not have access to individual patient-level data (IPD) from clinical trials.-Currently, there is little consensus on which method should be used to account for sparse adverse event data in meta-analyses.What this study adds-Among trials for which IPD were available, rosiglitazone use was consistently associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, likely driven by heart failure events.-Interpretation of rosiglitazone’s cardiovascular risk is complicated by varying magnitudes of myocardial infarction risk that were attenuated through aggregation of summary-level data in addition to IPD.-Among trials for which IPD were available, we identified a greater number of myocardial infarctions and fewer cardiovascular deaths reported in the IPD as compared to the summary-level data, which suggests that IPD may be necessary to accurately classify all adverse events when performing meta-analyses focused on safety.

scholarly journals Updating insights into rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk through shared data: individual patient and summary level meta-analyses

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l7078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D Wallach ◽  
Kun Wang ◽  
Audrey D Zhang ◽  
Deanna Cheng ◽  
Holly K Grossetta Nardini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analytical Approaches

AbstractObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of rosiglitazone treatment on cardiovascular risk and mortality using multiple data sources and varying analytical approaches with three aims in mind: to clarify uncertainties about the cardiovascular risk of rosiglitazone; to determine whether different analytical approaches are likely to alter the conclusions of adverse event meta-analyses; and to inform efforts to promote clinical trial transparency and data sharing.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Data sourcesGlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com for individual patient level data (IPD) and GSK’s Study Register platforms, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2019 for summary level data.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomized, controlled, phase II-IV clinical trials that compared rosiglitazone with any control for at least 24 weeks in adults.Data extraction and synthesisFor analyses of trials for which IPD were available, a composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular related death, and non-cardiovascular related death was examined. These four events were examined independently as secondary analyses. For analyses including trials for which IPD were not available, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular related death were examined, which were determined from summary level data. Multiple meta-analyses were conducted that accounted for trials with zero events in one or both arms with two different continuity corrections (0.5 constant and treatment arm) to calculate odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.Results33 eligible trials were identified from ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com for which IPD were available (21 156 patients). Additionally, 103 trials for which IPD were not available were included in the meta-analyses for myocardial infarction (23 683 patients), and 103 trials for which IPD were not available contributed to the meta-analyses for cardiovascular related death (22 772 patients). Among 29 trials for which IPD were available and that were included in previous meta-analyses using GSK’s summary level data, more myocardial infarction events were identified by using IPD instead of summary level data for 26 trials, and fewer cardiovascular related deaths for five trials. When analyses were limited to trials for which IPD were available, and a constant continuity correction of 0.5 and a random effects model were used to account for trials with zero events in only one arm, patients treated with rosiglitazone had a 33% increased risk of a composite event compared with controls (odds ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.61; rosiglitazone population: 274 events among 11 837 patients; control population: 219 events among 9319 patients). The odds ratios for myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular related death, and non-cardiovascular related death were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.51), 1.54 (1.14 to 2.09), 1.15 (0.55 to 2.41), and 1.18 (0.60 to 2.30), respectively. For analyses including trials for which IPD were not available, odds ratios for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular related death were attenuated (1.09, 0.88 to 1.35, and 1.12, 0.72 to 1.74, respectively). Results were broadly consistent when analyses were repeated using trials with zero events across both arms and either of the two continuity corrections was used.ConclusionsThe results suggest that rosiglitazone is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, especially for heart failure events. Although increased risk of myocardial infarction was observed across analyses, the strength of the evidence varied and effect estimates were attenuated when summary level data were used in addition to IPD. Because more myocardial infarctions and fewer cardiovascular related deaths were reported in the IPD than in the summary level data, sharing IPD might be necessary when performing meta-analyses focused on safety.Systematic review registrationOSF Home https://osf.io/4yvp2/.

scholarly journals Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie McLellan ◽  
Clare R Bankhead ◽  
Jason L Oke ◽  
F D Richard Hobbs ◽  
Clare J Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Natriuretic Peptide ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Individual Outcomes ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundGUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF.Study selectionEight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted.Findings89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62–80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant.ConclusionsConsidering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice.Trial registration numberSystematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.

scholarly journals Immunomodulatory interventions in myocardial infarction and heart failure: a systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analysis of IL-1 inhibition

2018 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 1445-1461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Panahi ◽  
Angelos Papanikolaou ◽  
Azam Torabi ◽  
Ji-Gang Zhang ◽  
Habib Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals TaiChi and Qigong for Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Shaojun Liao ◽  
Xiankun Chen ◽  
Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg ◽  
Gaetano Marrone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background. Depression is a debilitating comorbidity of heart failure (HF) that needs assessment and management. Along with mind-body exercise to deal with HF with depression, the use of TaiChi and/or Qigong practices (TQPs) has increased. Therefore, this systematic review assesses the effects of TQPs on depression among patients with HF. Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of TQPs on depression in patients with HF were searched by five databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)). With standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of TQPs on depressive symptoms were performed. Results. Of eight included RCTs, seven (481 patients) provided data for the meta-analysis. The pooling revealed that TQPs contribute to depression remission in HF (SMD −0.66; 95% CI −0.98 to −0.33, P < 0.0001 ; I2 = 64%). Its antidepressive effect was not influenced by intervention duration or exercise setting, but rather by ejection fraction subtype, depressive severity, and depression instruments. The beneficial effects were preserved when the study with the largest effect was removed. Conclusion. This study suggests that TQPs might be a good strategy for alleviating depressive symptoms in patients with HF. And rigorous-design RCTs, which focus on the identified research gaps, are needed to further establish the therapeutic effects of TQPs for depression in HF.

Glycated hemoglobin as a surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of drugs in diabetes mellitus trials: a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Andrea Rivera ◽  
Milton J. M. Rodríguez-Zúñiga ◽  
José Caballero-Alvarado ◽  
Fabián Fiestas
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Glycated Hemoglobin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Kidney Injury

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to investigate whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a valid surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in diabetes mellitus (DM) trials. Methods We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of a treatment on HbA1c (mean difference between groups) and clinical outcomes (relative risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and/or kidney injury) in patients with DM. Then, we investigated the association between treatment effects on HbA1c and clinical outcomes using regression analysis at the trial level. Lastly, we interpreted the correlation coefficients (R) using the cut-off points suggested by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate if it demonstrated a strong association: lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) of R greater than or equal to .85. Results Nineteen RCTs were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate for any clinical outcome: mortality (R = .34; 95 percent CI −.14 to .69), myocardial infarction (R = .20; −.30 to .61), heart failure (R = .08; −.40 to .53), kidney injury (R = −.04; −.52 to .47), and stroke (R = .81; .54 to .93). Conclusions The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs does not support the use of HbA1c as a surrogate to measure the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM studies.

scholarly journals Atrial fibrillation and the risk for myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality and heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (14) ◽  
pp. 1555-1566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vidar Ruddox ◽  
Irene Sandven ◽  
John Munkhaugen ◽  
Julie Skattebu ◽  
Thor Edvardsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
All Cause Mortality
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document