Biomedical subjects

Sheena Derry

Publications and source records attributed to Sheena Derry.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyxlooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and gastrointestinal harm: review of clinical trials and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal harm, known to occur with NSAIDs, is thought to be lower with NSAID and gastroprotective agent, and with inhibitors selective to cyclooxygenase-2 (coxibs) at usual plasma concentrations. We examine competing strategies for available evidence of reduced gastrointestinal bleeding in clinical trials and combine this evidence with evidence from clinical practice on whether the strategies work in the real world, whether guidance on appropriate prescribing is followed, and whether patients adhere to the strategies. METHODS: We used a series of systematic literature searches to find full publications of relevant studies for evidence about the efficacy of these different gastroprotection strategies in clinical trials, and for evidence that they worked and were adhered to in clinical practice--whether they were effective. We chose to use good quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they were available. RESULTS: Evidence of efficacy of coxibs compared to NSAIDs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding was strong, with consistent reductions in events of about 50% in large randomised trials (34,460 patients), meta-analyses of randomised trials (52,474 patients), and large observational studies in clinical practice (3,093 bleeding events). Evidence on the efficacy of NSAID plus gastroprotection with acid suppressants (proton pump inhibitors, PPIs, and histamine antagonists, H2As) was based mainly on the surrogate measure of endoscopic ulcers. The limited information on damage to the bowel suggested that NSAID plus PPI was more damaging than coxibs. Eleven observational studies studied 1.6 million patients, of whom 911,000 were NSAID users, and showed that 76% (range 65% to 90%) of patients with at least one gastrointestinal risk factor received no prescription for gastroprotective agent with an NSAID. The exception was a cohort of US veterans with previous gastrointestinal bleeding, where 75% had gastroprotection with an NSAID. When gastroprotection was prescribed, it was often described as inadequate. A single study suggested that patient adherence to prescribed gastroprotection was low. CONCLUSION: Evidence for efficacy of gastroprotection strategies with NSAIDs is limited. In clinical practice few patients who need gastroprotection get it, and those who get it may not take it. For coxibs, gastroprotection is inherent, although probably not complete.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2006

Incidence of epidural haematoma and neurological injury in cardiovascular patients with epidural analgesia/anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural anaesthesia is used extensively for cardiothoracic and vascular surgery in some centres, but not in others, with argument over the safety of the technique in patients who are usually extensively anticoagulated before, during, and after surgery. The principle concern is bleeding in the epidural space, leading to transient or persistent neurological problems. METHODS: We performed an extensive systematic review to find published cohorts of use of epidural catheters during vascular, cardiac, and thoracic surgery, using electronic searching, hand searching, and reference lists of retrieved articles. RESULTS: Twelve studies included 14,105 patients, of whom 5,026 (36%) had vascular surgery, 4,971 (35%) cardiac surgery, and 4,108 (29%) thoracic surgery. There were no cases of epidural haematoma, giving maximum risks following epidural anaesthesia in cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery of 1 in 1,700, 1 in 1,400 and 1 in 1,700 respectively. In all these surgery types combined the maximum expected rate would be 1 in 4,700. In all these patients combined there were eight cases of transient neurological injury, a rate of 1 in 1,700 (95% confidence interval 1 in 3,300 to 1 in 850). There were no cases of persistent neurological injury (maximum expected rate 1 in 4,600). CONCLUSION: These estimates for cardiothoracic epidural anaesthesia should be the worst case. Limitations are inadequate denominators for different types of surgery in anticoagulated cardiothoracic or vascular patients more at risk of bleeding.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2006

Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result.

Bias from funding sources of trials would threaten their validity. Meta-analyses of high quality acute pain and migraine trials were used to explore the hypothesis that industry funding of clinical trials produced more favourable results than non-profit sponsorship. Analyses were planned to evaluate whether industry-sponsored trials had different results from trials funded by academic or other non-profit sources, but of 176 trials, only two were supported by non-profit sources, while 31 provided no statement of support. An alternative method is proposed within industry-sponsored trials, looking at conflicting industry interests for the same drug, used either as test or comparator treatment. Fifty-three trials used an analgesic as test and 90 as comparator, allowing comparisons to be made for aspirin 600/650 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg and sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg. Only for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, with the outcome of headache response at 2 h, was there any significant difference between the drug used as a test or as a comparator. The direction was for higher (worse) NNTs with sumatriptan as comparator. Investigating potential industry bias through the funding source of trials is unlikely to be adequate because of a dearth of trials funded by non-profit organisations. We propose a method based on potential conflict of interest within industry-sponsored trials. Using this method, established clinical trial results in acute pain and migraine appear to be unbiased.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

PubMed2006

Case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions--systematic literature survey of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are valuable early warning signals. DESIGN: Systematic literature survey DATA SOURCES: We evaluated all case reports of adverse drug reactions published in 1997 in five medical journals. Reports were excluded if the adverse reaction had previously been described in earlier publications and was already listed in the product information of the drug reference source (the British National Formulary (BNF) or the Medicines Compendium). We used the Web of Knowledge Citation Index and Medline for 2003 to identify follow-up studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: the number of suspected adverse reactions subjected to formal validation studies and the findings of these studies. Secondary: the number of instances in which the warning from the case report was incorporated into the product information. RESULTS: We evaluated 63 suspected adverse reactions and found that most (52/63, 83%) had not yet been subjected to further detailed evaluation. Data from controlled studies that supported the postulated link between the drug and the adverse event were available in only three cases. Of the 48 agents listed in the drug reference sources, details of the suspected reaction were subsequently added to the Medicines Compendium in 15 instances, and to the BNF in seven instances. In each case, only one reaction had been confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Published case reports of suspected adverse reactions are of limited value as suspicions are seldom subjected to confirmatory investigation. Furthermore, these alerts are not incorporated into drug reference sources in a systematic manner.

Anecdotes as Topic↗

PubMed2006

Imiquimod for actinic keratosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Benefit and harm associated with treating actinic keratosis (AK) with the immune response modifier imiquimod was assessed using published randomized-controlled trials. Five randomized double-blind trials lasted 12-16 weeks and treated 1,293 patients. Complete clearance occurred in 50% of patients treated with imiquimod, compared to 5% treated with vehicle, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one patient to have their keratosis completely cleared after 12-16 weeks was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 2.0-2.5). For partial (>/=75%) clearance the NNT was 1.8 (1.7-2.0). The proportion of patients with any adverse event, any local adverse event, or any treatment-related adverse event was substantially higher with imiquimod than with vehicle, and numbers needed to harm for one additional adverse event with imiquimod over 12-16 weeks ranged from 3.2 to 5.9. Particular local adverse events with imiquimod included erythema (27%), scabbing or crusting (21%), flaking (9%), erosion (6%), edema (4%), and weeping (3%). Imiquimod 5% cream was effective in the treatment of AK, preventing potential development of squamous cell carcinoma. Future investigation might be aimed at elucidating optimal dosing to minimize adverse events without detriment to efficacy, and evaluating long-term recurrence.

Aminoquinolines↗

PubMed2006

Incidence of epidural hematoma, infection, and neurologic injury in obstetric patients with epidural analgesia/anesthesia.

Of the 4 million annual births in the United States, 2.4 million involve epidural analgesia. Serious adverse events are rare but are important in young women. Robust estimates for the risk of harm are not available. Data for superficial and deep infections, hematoma, and transient and permanent neurologic injury were obtained from studies reporting adverse events with obstetric epidural analgesia, and incidence presented as individual risk for a woman, number of events per million women, and percentage incidence. A total of 1.37 million women received an epidural for childbirth, reported in 27 articles. Most information (85% of women) was in larger (> 10,000 women) studies published after 1990, with risk estimates as follows: epidural hematoma, 1 in 168,000; deep epidural infection, 1 in 145,000; persistent neurologic injury, 1 in 240,000; and transient neurologic injury, 1 in 6,700. Earlier and smaller studies produced significantly higher risk estimates for transient neurologic injury plus injury of unknown duration.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials and cohort studies of mycophenolate mofetil in lupus nephritis.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressant drug being used for induction and maintenance of remission of lupus nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Evidence about its use was sought from full publications and abstracts of randomised trials and cohort studies by using a variety of search strategies. Efficacy and adverse event outcomes were sought. Five randomised trials enrolled patients with World Health Organization (WHO) class III, IV, or V (mostly IV) lupus nephritis, predominantly comparing MMF (1 to 3 g daily) with cyclophosphamide and steroid. Complete response and complete or partial response was significantly more frequent with MMF than with cyclophosphamide, with numbers needed to treat of 8 (95% confidence interval 4.3 to 60) to induce one additional complete or partial response, with wide confidence intervals. Death was reported less frequently with MMF (0.7%, 1 death in 152 patients) than with cyclophosphamide (7.8%, 12 deaths in 154 patients), with a number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) one death of 14 (8 to 48). Hospital admission was also lower with MMF (1.7% versus 15%; NNTp 7.4 [4.8 to 16]). Serious infections, leucopaenia, amenorrhoea, and hair loss were all significantly less frequent with MMF than with cyclophosphamide, but diarrhoea was significantly more common with MMF. Ten of 18 cohort studies enrolled only patients with lupus nephritis (author-defined or WHO class III to V). Seven of these 10 reported that complete or partial response with MMF (mostly 1 or 2 g daily) with steroid occurred in 121/151 (80%) and that treatment failure or no response occurred in 30/151 (20%). Adverse events were generally similar in cohort studies with and without only patients with lupus nephritis. In all 18 cohorts, gastrointestinal adverse events (diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting) occurred in 30%, infection in 23%, and serious infection in 4.3%. Adverse event discontinuations occurred in 14% and lack of efficacy occurred in 10%. There was a single death with MMF, a mortality rate over the course of 1 year of approximately 0.2%. The results form a basis on which to plan future studies and provide a guide for the use of MMF in lupus nephritis until results of larger studies are available. At least one such study is under way.

Cohort Studies↗

PubMed2005

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomised and properly blinded trials directly comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor with another in a normal home setting. Valid indirect comparisons with a common comparator must examine equivalent doses, similar duration, similar populations, with the same outcomes reported in the same way. METHODS: Published randomised, double-blind trials of oral PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction were sought from reference lists in previous reviews and electronic searching. Analyses of efficacy and harm were carried out for each treatment, and results compared where there was a common comparator and consistency of outcome reporting, using equivalent doses. RESULTS: Analysis was limited by differential reporting of outcomes. Sildenafil trials were clinically and geographically more diverse. Tadalafil and vardenafil trials tended to use enriched enrollment. Using all trials, the three interventions were similar for consistently reported efficacy outcomes. Rates of successful intercourse for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 65%, 62%, and 59%, with placebo rates of 23-28%. The rates of improved erections were 76%, 75% and 71%, respectively, with placebo rates of 22-24%, and NNTs of 1.9 or 2.0. Reporting of withdrawals was less consistent, but all-cause withdrawals for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 8% 13% and 20%. All three drugs were well tolerated, with headache being the most commonly reported event at 13-17%. There were few serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: There were differences between trials in outcomes reported, limiting comparisons, and the most useful outcomes were not reported. For common outcomes there was similar efficacy between PDE-5 inhibitors.

3',5'-Cyclic-GMP Phosphodiesterases↗

PubMed2005

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports.

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2004

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: : A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2004

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in acute conditions like sprains and strains, with differences between individual drugs for efficacy. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and writing to manufacturers. We selected randomised double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment in adults with acute pain, and extracted dichotomous information approximating to a 50% reduction in pain at one week, together with details of adverse events and withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, with sensitivity analyses where appropriate to investigate differences between individual drugs and aspects of trial design. RESULTS: Twenty-six double blind placebo controlled trials had information from 2,853 patients for evaluation of efficacy. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo in 19 of the 26 trials, with a pooled relative benefit of 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.7), and NNT of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 3.4 to 4.4) compared with placebo for the outcome of half pain relief at seven days. Results were not affected by outcome reported, or condition treated, but smaller trials yielded a larger estimate of efficacy. Indirect comparisons of individual topical NSAIDs showed that ketoprofen was significantly better than all other topical NSAIDs, while indomethacin was barely distinguished from placebo. Three trials, with 433 patients, compared topical with oral NSAID (two trials compared the same drug, one compared different drugs) and found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events, systemic adverse events, or withdrawals due to an adverse event were rare, and no different between topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating acute painful conditions for one week.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks for chronic conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Relative benefit and number needed to treat, analysis of adverse events, and withdrawals. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 182 patients with acute conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 5.6; number needed to treat 2.1, 1.7 to 2.8). Six double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 429 patients with chronic conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 1.5, 1.3 to 1.9; number needed to treat 5.3, 3.6 to 10.2), but larger, more valid studies were without significant effect. Local adverse events and withdrawals were generally rare in trials that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited information, topically applied rubefacients containing salicylates may be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain. Trials of musculoskeletal and arthritic pain suggested moderate to poor efficacy. Adverse events were rare in studies of acute pain and poorly reported in those of chronic pain. Efficacy estimates for rubefacients are unreliable owing to a lack of good clinical trials.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied capsaicin for chronic pain from neuropathic or musculoskeletal disorders. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, an in-house database, and contact with manufacturers of topical capsaicin. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing topically applied capsaicin with placebo or another treatment in adults with chronic pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcome was dichotomous information for the number of patients with about a 50% reduction in pain. Outcomes were extracted at four weeks for musculoskeletal conditions and eight weeks for neuropathic conditions. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six double blind placebo controlled trials (656 patients) were pooled for analysis of neuropathic conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.075% compared with placebo was 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat was 5.7 (4.0 to 10.0). Three double blind placebo controlled trials (368 patients) were pooled for analysis of musculoskeletal conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.025% or plaster compared with placebo was 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0) and the number needed to treat was 8.1 (4.6 to 34). Around one third of patients experienced local adverse events with capsaicin, which would not have been the case with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although topically applied capsaicin has moderate to poor efficacy in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, it may be useful as an adjunct or sole therapy for a small number of patients who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other treatments.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2004

A comparison of three different sources of data in assessing the frequencies of adverse reactions to amiodarone.

AIMS: To compare the frequencies of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to amiodarone from three separate datasets: (i) a meta-analysis of clinical trials, (ii) spontaneous reports published in medical journals, and (iii) spontaneous reports sent to the World Health Organization (WHO). METHODS: We classified the ADRs into eight categories, based on the site involved, and built a rank order of the ADRs by category (from most to least commonly reported) for each dataset. We also calculated the relative proportions for all eight ADR categories within each dataset, in order to be able to compare the distributions of ADR frequencies: we assigned an index value of 1.0 to the frequency of respiratory toxicity in each set and calculated values for the other ADRs relative to respiratory toxicity. RESULTS: Thyroid disorders were the most commonly reported ADRs in the WHO dataset. In contrast, published case reports showed a preponderance of respiratory disorders, while in the meta-analysis cardiac conduction problems were the most frequent. The rank orders of ADRs differed among the three datasets, as did the index values of specific ADR categories with respect to the respiratory category. CONCLUSIONS: The distributions of ADR rank order and relative frequencies are dissimilar among the three datasets, as each dataset compiles information in a different way. Nevertheless, each dataset has its own specific strengths, and all three should be used together in obtaining a complete picture of a drug's safety profile. Important therapeutic and regulatory decisions should not simply be based on one source of data.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

PubMed2003

Does anybody read "evidence-based" articles?

BACKGROUND: The electronic version of the British Medical Journal (eBMJ) has a unique feature in that it provides an electronic record of the number of times an article has been viewed ("hits") in the week after its publication. We sought to compare the relative popularity of primary research and "evidence-based" papers against that of narrative reviews and editorials. We surveyed four broad groupings of articles in 2001: Editorials, Clinical Reviews (which are narrative reviews), Education and Debate, and Papers (which are original research articles and systematic reviews). Clinical Reviews were the most frequently viewed articles, with an average of 4148 hits per article, while Papers were less popular (average of 1168 hits per article). Systematic reviews (23 articles, average of 1190 hits per article) were visited far less often than narrative reviews. Editorials (average of 2537 hits per article) were viewed much more frequently than Papers, even where the editorial was written as an accompanying piece with a direct link to the paper. DISCUSSION: Narrative reviews and editorials are accessed more frequently than primary research papers or systematic reviews in the first week after their publication. These findings may disappoint those who believe that it is important for readers to critically appraise the primary research data. Although the technical quality of journal articles may have been helped by recommendations on structured reporting, the readability of such articles has received little attention. Authors and journal editors must take steps to make research articles and systematic reviews more attractive to readers. This may involve using simpler language, as well as innovative use of web resources to produce shorter, snappier papers, with the methodological or technical details made available elsewhere. CONCLUSION: Primary research and "evidence-based" papers seem to be less attractive to readers than narrative reviews and editorials in the first week after publication. Authors and editors should try to improve the early appeal of primary research papers.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2003

Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: calculating benefit and harm in the individual patient.

AIMS: To estimate the absolute reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events and absolute increase in gastrointestinal haemorrhage associated with aspirin for individuals with different baseline risks. METHODS: Calculation of absolute treatment effects from estimates of: (i) baseline risks for cardiovascular event and gastrointestinal haemorrhage; and (ii) relative risks of these events with treatment. Baseline cardiovascular risks were derived from existing risk scores, and baseline risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage from an observational cohort study. Changes in relative risks were obtained from clinical trial data. The effects of aspirin treatment were calculated in examples of two individuals with very different baseline risks. RESULTS: Treatment of a healthy 74-year-old man (blood pressure 144/88 mm Hg and no history of gastrointestinal disorder) would reduce his annual risk of a cardiovascular event from 2% to 1.74% (absolute risk reduction 0.26%, number needed to treat 385), but increase the gastrointestinal haemorrhage risk from 0.3% to 0.51% (absolute risk increase 0.21%, number needed to harm 476). In a 66-year-old obese man, following a transient ischaemic attack, and with a history of hospital treatment for a peptic ulcer, the annual risk of a cardiovascular event would be reduced from 5% to 4.35% (absolute risk reduction 0.65%, number needed to treat 153), but the risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage would increase from 1.08% to 1.83% (absolute risk increase 0.75%, number needed to harm 133). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating benefit and harm by taking into account the baseline risks in each individual allows patients and doctors to judge for themselves the magnitude of the trade-offs involved in taking aspirin.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Air travel and venous thrombosis: how much help might aspirin be?

There has been considerable attention focused recently on the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) associated with air travel. Despite the lack of evidence among air travelers, a single dose of aspirin has been widely recommended as a means of preventing such thrombosis. We have calculated the potential benefit of aspirin by applying the data for aspirin in preventing DVT in hip fracture patients to the estimated rates of travel-related DVT. If the rate of travel-related DVT is 20 per 100,000 travelers, then we will have to treat 17,000 people with aspirin to prevent 1 additional DVT.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Appetite suppressants and valvular heart disease - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although appetite suppressants have been implicated in the development of valvular heart disease, the exact level of risk is still uncertain. Initial studies suggested that as many as 1 in 3 exposed patients were affected, but subsequent research has yielded substantially different figures. Our objective was to systematically assess the risk of valvular heart disease with appetite suppressants. METHODS: We accepted studies involving obese patients treated with any of the following appetite suppressants: fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and phentermine. Three types of studies were reviewed: controlled and uncontrolled observational studies, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were echocardiographically detectable aortic regurgitation of mild or greater severity, or mitral regurgitation of moderate or greater severity. RESULTS: Of the 1279 patients evaluated in seven uncontrolled cohort studies, 236 (18%) and 60 (5%) were found to have aortic and mitral regurgitation, respectively. Pooled data from six controlled cohort studies yielded, for aortic regurgitation, a relative risk ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence intervals 1.79 to 3.01, p < 0.00001) and an attributable rate of 4.9%, and for mitral regurgitation, a relative risk ratio of 1.55 (95% confidence intervals 1.06 to 2.25, p = 0.02) with an attributable rate of 1.0%. Only one case of valvular heart disease was detected in 57 randomized controlled trials, but this was judged unrelated to drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of valvular heart disease is significantly increased by the appetite suppressants reviewed here. Nevertheless, when considering all the evidence, valvulopathy is much less common than suggested by the initial, less methodologically rigorous studies.

Appetite Depressants↗