Carlos Alves1, Francisco Batel Marques, Ana Filipa Macedo. 1. Central Portugal Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit (UFC), Centre for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research (CHAD), AIBILI - Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image Azinhaga de Santa Comba, Celas, 3000-548, Coimbra, Portugal, carlosmiguel.costaalves@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how risk estimates generated from cumulative meta-analysis performs over time for drugs having their benefit/risk ratio re-evaluated due to safety issues and, additionally, assess whether results are consistent with regulatory authorities' conclusions. METHODS: Four major regulatory authorities were searched for their issued safety alerts supported by longitudinal, comparative studies (experimentals and/or observationals). The random-effects model was used to pooled odds ratios (OR) over time by including studies according to the year they first became available. RESULTS: Seventeen safety alerts were included in this study. In 2008, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) were associated with an increased risk for bone fractures [OR 1.25, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.55, P = 0.049); the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) issued a safety alert in 2010 and added warnings to the label. An increased risk for Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhea was pooled for PPIs in 2004 (OR 1.89, 1.19-3.02, P = 0.007); US FDA issued a safety alert in 2012, adding warnings to the label. PPIs were associated with pneumonia in 2009 (OR 1.40, 1.06-1.85, P = 0.017); US FDA issued an alert in 2012 but concluded that the benefit/risk (B/R) ratio remains positive. Statins were associated with an increased risk for diabetes (OR 1.07, 1.01-1.15, P = 0.033) in 2008. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an alert in 2012, including warnings to the label. The remaining cumulative meta-analyses did not estimate increased risks in advance of regulatory decisions. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that meta-analysis may help predict iatrogenic risks. However, between-study heterogeneity can considerably affect the estimated results, and therefore, this technique should not replace further assessments during BR ratio re-evaluations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how risk estimates generated from cumulative meta-analysis performs over time for drugs having their benefit/risk ratio re-evaluated due to safety issues and, additionally, assess whether results are consistent with regulatory authorities' conclusions. METHODS: Four major regulatory authorities were searched for their issued safety alerts supported by longitudinal, comparative studies (experimentals and/or observationals). The random-effects model was used to pooled odds ratios (OR) over time by including studies according to the year they first became available. RESULTS: Seventeen safety alerts were included in this study. In 2008, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) were associated with an increased risk for bone fractures [OR 1.25, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.55, P = 0.049); the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) issued a safety alert in 2010 and added warnings to the label. An increased risk for Clostridium-difficile-associated diarrhea was pooled for PPIs in 2004 (OR 1.89, 1.19-3.02, P = 0.007); US FDA issued a safety alert in 2012, adding warnings to the label. PPIs were associated with pneumonia in 2009 (OR 1.40, 1.06-1.85, P = 0.017); US FDA issued an alert in 2012 but concluded that the benefit/risk (B/R) ratio remains positive. Statins were associated with an increased risk for diabetes (OR 1.07, 1.01-1.15, P = 0.033) in 2008. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an alert in 2012, including warnings to the label. The remaining cumulative meta-analyses did not estimate increased risks in advance of regulatory decisions. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that meta-analysis may help predict iatrogenic risks. However, between-study heterogeneity can considerably affect the estimated results, and therefore, this technique should not replace further assessments during BR ratio re-evaluations.
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Paul D Allen; Steffie J Woolhandler; David U Himmelstein; Sidney M Wolfe; David H Bor Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sripal Bangalore; Sunil Kumar; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Harikrishna Makani; Ehud Grossman; Jørn Wetterslev; Ajay K Gupta; Peter S Sever; Christian Gluud; Franz H Messerli Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Peter Jüni; Linda Nartey; Stephan Reichenbach; Rebekka Sterchi; Paul A Dieppe; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Dec 4-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edward L Jones; Michael P Meara; Jennifer S Schwartz; Jeffrey W Hazey; Kyle A Perry Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 4.584