Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ ; 368: l7078, 2020 Feb 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32024657

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: GlaxoSmithKline'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 STUDIES: Randomized, controlled, phase II-IV clinical trials that compared rosiglitazone with any control for at least 24 weeks in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: For 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. RESULTS: 33 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 REGISTRATION: OSF Home https://osf.io/4yvp2/.


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/induzido quimicamente , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Rosiglitazona/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/farmacologia , Disseminação de Informação , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fatores de Risco , Rosiglitazona/farmacologia
2.
J Law Med Ethics ; 47(3): 393-395, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31560627

RESUMO

Surrogate endpoints are a common application of biomarkers to estimate clinical benefit in clinical trials, despite questions about reliability. This article discusses ongoing opportunities for their validation, in the context of a regulatory environment in which they are increasingly championed.

4.
Milbank Q ; 97(3): 796-819, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31304643

RESUMO

Policy Points Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommendations and the agency's final actions exhibit high rates of agreement, with cases of disagreement tending to reflect the proposed action type and degree of advisory committee consensus. In the case of disagreements, the FDA tended to be less likely than its advisory committees to approve new products, approve new supplemental indications, or enact new safety changes. These findings raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns. CONTEXT: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes advisory committees to provide external scientific counsel on potential agency actions and to inform regulatory decision making. The degree to which advisory committees and their respective agency divisions disagree on recommendations has not been well characterized across product and action types. METHODS: We examined public documents from FDA advisory committee meetings and medical product databases for all FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015. We classified the 376 voting meetings in that period by medical product, regulatory, and advisory committee meeting characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the associations between these characteristics and discordance between the advisory committee's recommendations and the FDA's final actions. FINDINGS: Twenty-two percent of the FDA's final actions were discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications. Statements by public speakers, advisory committee conflicts of interest, and media coverage were not associated with discordance between the committee and the agency. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA disagrees with the recommendation of its advisory committees a minority of the time, and in these cases it tends to be less likely to approve new products or supplemental indications and take safety actions. Deviations from recommendations thus offer an opportunity to understand the factors influencing decisions made by both the agency and its expert advisory groups.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA