Diogo Mendes1,2, Carlos Alves1,2, Francisco Batel-Marques1,2. 1. CHAD-Center for Health Technology Assessment and Drug Research, AIBILI-Association for Innovation and Biomedical Research on Light and Image, Coimbra, Portugal. 2. School of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: Reports from regulatory authorities (RAs) were consulted, and Medline searches were performed to identify studies assessing CV risks [all-cause death, CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or congestive heart failure (CHF)] for thiazolidinediones. Meta-analyses were performed to pool evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS). NNHs [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] per year were estimated for CV adverse events. RESULTS: Reports from RAs included two meta-analyses of short-term RCTs, two long-term RCTs (RECORD and PROACTIVE), and a systematic review of OS (n = 29). The Medline search identified six additional OS. Statistically significant NNH values were obtained for the following: (i) rosiglitazone versus control on MI and CHF in the meta-analysis of RCTs (NNH = 16; 95%CI = 10-255; and NNH = 7; 95%CI = 5-16, respectively) and meta-analysis of OS (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 9-20; and NNH = 5; 95%CI = 32-131, respectively) and on CHF in the RECORD (NNH = 6; 95%CI = 4-14); (ii) pioglitazone versus control on CHF (NNH = 11; 95%CI = 6, 403) in the meta-analysis of RCTs and PROACTIVE (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 8-43); and (iii) rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone on MI (NNH = 69; 95%CI = 32-379), stroke (NNH = 36; 95%CI = 20-225), CHF (NNH = 33; 95%CI = 19-47), and all-cause death (NNH = 63; 95%CI = 49-100) in the meta-analysis of OS. CONCLUSION: The NNH values suggested an increased CV risk with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone across several sources of information. The inclusion of objective metrics in post-marketing drug's benefit-risk assessments could be of increased value and help RAs to make consistent decisions on drug safety.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: Reports from regulatory authorities (RAs) were consulted, and Medline searches were performed to identify studies assessing CV risks [all-cause death, CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or congestive heart failure (CHF)] for thiazolidinediones. Meta-analyses were performed to pool evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS). NNHs [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] per year were estimated for CV adverse events. RESULTS: Reports from RAs included two meta-analyses of short-term RCTs, two long-term RCTs (RECORD and PROACTIVE), and a systematic review of OS (n = 29). The Medline search identified six additional OS. Statistically significant NNH values were obtained for the following: (i) rosiglitazone versus control on MI and CHF in the meta-analysis of RCTs (NNH = 16; 95%CI = 10-255; and NNH = 7; 95%CI = 5-16, respectively) and meta-analysis of OS (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 9-20; and NNH = 5; 95%CI = 32-131, respectively) and on CHF in the RECORD (NNH = 6; 95%CI = 4-14); (ii) pioglitazone versus control on CHF (NNH = 11; 95%CI = 6, 403) in the meta-analysis of RCTs and PROACTIVE (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 8-43); and (iii) rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone on MI (NNH = 69; 95%CI = 32-379), stroke (NNH = 36; 95%CI = 20-225), CHF (NNH = 33; 95%CI = 19-47), and all-cause death (NNH = 63; 95%CI = 49-100) in the meta-analysis of OS. CONCLUSION: The NNH values suggested an increased CV risk with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone across several sources of information. The inclusion of objective metrics in post-marketing drug's benefit-risk assessments could be of increased value and help RAs to make consistent decisions on drug safety.
Authors: Sreenivasa C Ramaiahgari; Suramya Waidyanatha; Darlene Dixon; Michael J DeVito; Richard S Paules; Stephen S Ferguson Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.849