Francisco Batel-Marques

A meta-analysis of serious adverse events reported with exenatide and liraglutide: acute pancreatitis and cancer.

AIMS The association between GLP-1 agonists, acute pancreatitis (AP), any cancer and thyroid cancer is discussed. This meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the risk of those serious adverse events associated with GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched in order to identify longitudinal studies evaluating exenatide or liraglutide use and reporting data on AP or cancer. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using a random-effects model. I(2) statistics assessed heterogeneity. RESULTS Twenty-five studies were included. Neither exenatide (OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.58-1.22], I(2) = 30%) nor liraglutide (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.21-4.39], I(2) = 0%) were associated with an increased risk of AP, independent of baseline comparator. The pooled OR for cancer associated with exenatide was 0.86 (95% CI 0.29, 2.60, I(2) = 0%) and for liraglutide was 1.35 (95% CI 0.70, 2.59, I(2) = 0%). Liraglutide was not associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer (OR 1.54 [95% CI 0.40-6.02], I(2) = 0%). For exenatide, no thyroid malignancies were reported. CONCLUSIONS Current available published evidence is insufficient to support an increased risk of AP or cancer associated with GLP-1 agonists. These rare and long-term adverse events deserve properly monitoring in future studies evaluating GLP-1 agonists.

Data sources on drug safety evaluation: a review of recent published meta‐analyses

Meta‐analysis is a quantitative approach to summarize the findings from several studies and has been applied with increasing frequency to clinical trials. Because of their sample size and duration limitations, experimental studies (ESs) could not be able to detect late or rare adverse events (AEs), which may be identified in well‐designed observational studies (OSs). This study aims to identify and analyze meta‐analyses from both ES and OS where safety was found to be an outcome measure.

Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Safety After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty A Meta-Analysis

Direct experimental safety comparisons of Xa coagulation factor direct inhibitors, apixaban and rivaroxaban, on their approved therapeutic indications have not been identified. Due to recently raised safety concerns, a meta-analysis was carried out pooling data from studies identified on a Medline and Cochrane Library search in order to better evaluate the safety profile of both drugs. Abstracts from scientific meetings were also searched from 2003 to 2011. Primary and secondary outcome measures were major bleeding and total bleeding, respectively. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using random effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with I2 statistics. Of the 160 screened publications, 12 clinical trials were included in which enoxaparin was the active control. For knee arthroplasty, apixaban was associated with significantly fewer major bleeding events (6496 patients, RR 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.96) and fewer total bleeding events (6496 patients, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97). There were no significant differences in the incidence of major bleeding events (5699 patients, RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.56-3.52) or in the incidence of total bleeding events for rivaroxaban (5699 patients, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30). No differences were found when thromboprophylaxis after hip replacement was the case. Apixaban seems to be associated with a lower risk of the incidence of hemorrhagic events after total knee arthroplasty. For hip arthroplasty, no differences were found between the studied drugs.

Safety profiles of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab: a pharmacovigilance study using a measure of disproportionality in a database of spontaneously reported adverse events

Despite being effective, the biologics approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis have been associated with serious adverse events. This study is aimed at comparing the safety profiles of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab by analysing the disproportionalities of the associations between the different adverse events and the different biologics in the Portuguese spontaneous reporting database.

Number needed to harm in the post-marketing safety evaluation: results for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.

Our aim is to investigate the usefulness of metric indices in post‐marketing safety evaluations by estimating number needed to harm (NNH) values for cardiovascular (CV) adverse outcomes for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.

Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal

BackgroundThe number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations.MethodsThe top 25 high-impact factor journals in the “General and/or Internal Medicine” category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case–control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%).ConclusionsA considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity: A 5-year retrospective study in a hospital electronic health records database

Hypersensitivity adverse drug reactions (HADRs) are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify cases of HADRs within a hospital electronic health records (EHR) database.