Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines

Adverse Events Associated With Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events (AEs) are associated with morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure. We aimed to assess incidences and comparisons of ERCP AEs.

METHODS

We included studies performed after 2000 reporting on ERCP AEs from database inception through March 12, 2024. Outcomes included pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, and death. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate incidences of AEs. Subgroup and pairwise meta-analyses were performed. Meta-regression was performed on median recruitment year to assess temporal trends in pancreatitis incidence.

RESULTS

A total of 380 studies were included. The incidence of death attributable to ERCP was 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%-0.3%; I2, 44%; n = 47,258) in all-comers. The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 4.6% (95% CI, 4.0%-5.1%; I2, 96%; n = 293,378) among all-comers and 6.5% (95% CI, 5.9%-7.1%, I2, 89%; n = 88,809) among first-time patients. Pancreatitis incidence remained stable between 2000 and 2023 (average annual percent change 0.06, 95% CI, -0.27 to 0.39). The overall incidences of the following AEs for all-comers were: bleeding (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.2%-1.7%; I2, 93%; n = 229,655), cholangitis (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.3%; I2, 96%; n = 121,619), cholecystitis (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.2%; I2, 39%; n = 7799), and perforation (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.6%; I2, 90%; n = 306,378).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP-associated AEs remain common. Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis remained static despite improvements in techniques, prevention, and recognition. These results are important to patients, endoscopists, and policy makers to inform consent and to encourage implementation of available risk mitigation strategies.

Interleukin-receptor antagonist and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) is worsened by chronic inflammatory diseases. Interleukin receptor antagonists (IL-RAs) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have been studied to see if they can prevent cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical benefits and harms of IL-RAs and TNF inhibitors in the primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024. The reference lists of relevant studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports were searched to identify additional studies. No limitations on language, date of publication or study type were set.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that recruited people with and without pre-existing ACVD, comparing IL-RAs or TNF inhibitors versus placebo or usual care, were selected. The primary outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors, working independently at each step, selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and used GRADE to judge the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 RCTs (22,053 participants; 21,308 analysed), comparing medication efficacy with placebo or usual care. Thirty-four trials focused on primary prevention and 24 on secondary prevention. The interventions included IL-1 RAs (anakinra, canakinumab), IL-6 RA (tocilizumab), TNF-inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab) compared with placebo or usual care. The certainty of evidence was low to very low due to biases and imprecision; all trials had a high risk of bias. Primary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58, 1 trial), myocardial infarction (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.48, I² = 39%, 2 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11, I² = 0%, 2 trials), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.15; 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, I² = 54%, 3 trials), or infection (rate ratio 0.84, 95% 0.55 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 4 trials). Evidence is very uncertain about whether anakinra and cankinumab may reduce heart failure (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94, I² = 0%, 3 trials). Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was not reported as an outcome. IL-6 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.74, I² = 30%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to1.68, I² = 0%, 3 trials), heart failure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.63, I² = 0%, 2 trials), PVD (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.47, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, 1 trial), or any infection (rate ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, I2 = 18%, 5 trials). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I² = 33%, 5 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.99, I² = 10%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 62.26, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.80, I² = 0%; 3 trials), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.76, 1 trial). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, I² = 51%, 13 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina or PVD. Secondary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 0%, 8 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, I² = 0%, 3 trials), PVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.73, I² = 38%, 3 trials), stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, I² = 0%; 7 trials), heart failure (RR 0.91, 95% 0.5 to 1.65, I² = 0%; 7 trials), or adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, I² = 3%, 4 trials). There may be little to no difference between the groups in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.0.75 to 1.04, I² = 0%, 6 trials). IL6-RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.96, I² = 0%, 2 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.04, I² = 45%, 3 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02, 1 trial), stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.25, 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, I² = 0%, 2 trials), or any infection (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36, I² = 0%, 4 trials). No trial assessed PVD or heart failure. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, I² = 47%, 5 trials), heart failure (RR 0.92, 95% 0.75 to 1.14, I² = 0%, 4 trials), or adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56, I² = 32%, 2 trials). No trial assessed myocardial infarction, unstable angina, PVD or stroke. Adverse events may be underestimated and benefits inflated due to inadequate reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane review assessed the benefits and harms of using interleukin-receptor antagonists and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic diseases compared with placebo or usual care. However, the evidence for the predetermined outcomes was deemed low or very low certainty, so there is still a need to determine whether these interventions provide clinical benefits or cause harm from this perspective. In summary, the different biases and imprecision in the included studies limit their external validity and represent a limitation to determining the effectiveness of the intervention for both primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

Discharge Information About Adverse Drug Reactions Indicates Lower Self-Reported Adverse Drug Reactions and Fewer Concerns in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

AIM

There are discrepancies between the information patients desire about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the information they receive from healthcare providers; this is an impediment to shared decision-making. This study aimed to establish whether patients received information about ADRs resulting from prescribed pharmacotherapy, before hospital discharge, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to determine whether receiving information about ADRs was associated with incidence of self-reported ADRs or concerns related to prescribed pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

CONCARDPCI, a prospective multicentre cohort study including 3,417 consecutive patients after PCI, was conducted at seven high-volume referral PCI centres in two Nordic countries. Clinical data were collected from patients' medical records and national quality registries. Patient-reported outcome measures were registered 2 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) after discharge. Covariate-adjusted logistic regression yielded adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

At discharge, 38% of participants had been informed about potential ADRs. For these patients, the incidence of self-reported ADRs was significantly lower at T1 (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50-0.74; p<0.001), T2 (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49-0.74; p<0.001), and T3 (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.71; p<0.001). Those who were not informed reported higher levels of concern about prescribed pharmacotherapy at all measuring points (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Those living alone (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92; p=0.008), who were female (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.72; p<0.001), and with three or more versus no comorbidities (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84; p=0.002) were less likely to receive information.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of patients were not informed about potential ADRs from prescribed pharmacotherapy after PCI. Patients informed about ADRs had lower incidences of self-reported ADRs and fewer concerns about prescribed pharmacotherapy.

Tolerability of bictegravir/tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine versus dolutegravir/lamivudine as maintenance therapy in a real-life setting

BACKGROUND

While both the burden of therapy and the individual drugs in bictegravir/tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (BIC/TAF/FTC) and dolutegravir/lamivudine differ, it is unclear whether their real-life tolerability may be also different.

METHODS

Single-centre, clinical cohort analysis of all virologically suppressed persons with HIV (PWH) who were first prescribed bictegravir as BIC/TAF/FTC or dolutegravir as dolutegravir/lamivudine and had taken ≥1 dose of study medication. Major outcomes were discontinuations either for any reason or due to toxicity. Incidence was calculated as number of episodes per 100 person-years adjusted through propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Relative to persons treated with BIC/TAF/FTC (n = 1231), persons treated with dolutegravir/lamivudine (n = 821) were older and had more AIDS-defining conditions although better HIV control. After a median follow-up of 52 weeks, adjusted incidence rates for discontinuation were 6.68 (95% CI 5.18-8.19) and 8.44 (95% CI 6.29-10.60) episodes per 100 person-years for BIC/TAF/FTC and dolutegravir/lamivudine, respectively; adjusted incidence rate ratio for dolutegravir/lamivudine was 1.26 (95% CI 0.89-1.78) relative to BIC/TAF/FTC (P = 0.1847). Adjusted incidence rates for discontinuation due to toxicity were 3.88 (95% CI 2.70-5.06) and 4.62 (95% CI 3.05-6.19) episodes per 100 person-years for BIC/TAF/FTC and dolutegravir/lamivudine, respectively; adjusted incidence rate ratio for dolutegravir/lamivudine was 1.19 (95% CI 0.75-1.90) relative to BIC/TAF/FTC (P = 0. 4620). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were neuropsychiatric (n = 42; 2%), followed by gastrointestinal (n = 23; 1%), dermatological (n = 15; 1%) and weight increase (n = 15; 1%), without differences between regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to BIC/TAF/FTC or dolutegravir/lamivudine showed no difference in the risks of overall or toxicity-related discontinuations or in the profile of adverse events leading to discontinuation.

Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important source of adverse effects data, including analyses in systematic reviews and recommendations in therapy guidelines. Trial publication bias may have profound effects on safety perceptions. This MiniReview presents and discusses biases in reporting of safety data in clinical trials and the implications for systematic reviews and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this work are to analyse risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in systemic corticosteroid trials and to assess adverse effects reporting in a fluoxetine trial in depression (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study [TADS]) and descriptions of adverse effects in adolescent depression therapy guidelines.

METHODS

We performed literature reviews and descriptive analyse of clinical trials with corticosteroids, and publications from the TADS trial. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from corticosteroids was analysed by meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

Gastrointestinal bleeding definitions varied considerably between trials. The incidence was significantly increased in hospitalized, but not in ambulant, patients compared to placebo. We identified several biases concerning TADS safety reporting, including severity thresholds and nonpublication of most adverse effects data beyond the initial 12 weeks. Therapy guidelines on adolescent depression mentioned suicidality risk, but many failed to mention other adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several pitfalls in adverse effects reporting in clinical trials. These include heterogeneous disease definitions, reporting thresholds, and incomplete reporting. Trial bias may have great impact on risk assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.