Article

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. <>
BMC Medical Research Methodology (Impact Factor: 2.17). 02/2007; 7:32. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-32
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required.
This discussion paper, which presupposes a basic knowledge of systematic review methodology, was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety.
A logical framework for making decisions in reviews that incorporate adverse effects is provided. We explore situations where a comprehensive investigation of adverse effects is warranted and suggest strategies to identify practicable and clinically useful outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of including observational and experimental study designs are reviewed. The consequences of including separate studies for intended and unintended effects are explained. Detailed advice is given on designing electronic searches for studies with adverse effects data. Reviewers of adverse effects are given general guidance on the assessment of study bias, data collection, analysis, presentation and the interpretation of harms in a systematic review.
Readers need to be able to recognize how strategic choices made in the review process determine what harms are found, and how the findings may affect clinical decisions. Researchers undertaking a systematic review that incorporates adverse effect data should understand the rationale for the suggested methods and be able to implement them in their review.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
132 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When prescribing antibiotics for common indications, clinicians need information about both harms and benefits, information that is currently available only from observational studies. We quantified the common harms of the most frequently prescribed antibiotic, amoxicillin, from randomized placebo-controlled trials. For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, for any randomized, participant-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for any indication, in any setting. Our main outcome was any reported adverse event. Of 730 studies identified, we included 45 trials: 27 involving amoxicillin, 17 involving amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 1 involving both. The indications for antibiotic therapy were variable. The risk of bias was low, although only 25 trials provided data suitable for assessment of harms, which suggested under-reporting. Diarrhea was attributed to amoxicillin only in the form of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (Peto odds ratio [OR] 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-4.87). The OR for candidiasis (3 trials) was significantly higher (OR 7.77, 95% CI 2.23-27.11). Rashes, nausea, itching, vomiting and abnormal results on liver function tests were not significantly increased. The results were not altered by sensitivity analyses, nor did funnel plots suggest publication bias. The number of courses of antibiotics needed to harm was 10 (95% CI 6-17) for diarrhea with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 27 (95% CI 24-42) for candidiasis with amoxicillin (with or without clavulanic acid). Diarrhea was caused by use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and candidiasis was caused by both amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Harms were poorly reported in most trials, and their true incidence may have been higher than reported. Nevertheless, these rates of common harms associated with amoxicillin therapy may inform decisions by helping clinicians to balance harms against benefits. © Canadian Medical Association.
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2014; 187(1). DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140848 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-marketing withdrawal of medicinal products because of deaths can be occasioned by evidence obtained from case reports, observational studies, randomized trials, or systematic reviews. There have been no studies of the pattern of withdrawals of medicinal products to which deaths have been specifically attributed and the evidence that affects such decisions. Our objectives were to identify medicinal products that were withdrawn after marketing in association with deaths, to search for the evidence on which withdrawal decisions were based, and to analyse the delays involved and the worldwide patterns of withdrawal. We searched the World Health Organization's Consolidated List of [Medicinal] Products, drug regulatory authorities' websites, PubMed, Google Scholar, and textbooks on adverse drug reactions. We included medicinal products for which death was specifically mentioned as a reason for withdrawal from the market. Non-human medicines, herbal products, and non-prescription medicines were excluded. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer verified them independently. We found 95 drugs for which death was documented as a reason for withdrawal between 1950 and 2013. All were withdrawn in at least one country, but at least 16 remained on the market in some countries. Withdrawals were more common in European countries; few were recorded in Africa (5.3%). The more recent the launch date, the sooner deaths were reported. However, in 47% of cases more than 2 years elapsed between the first report of a death and withdrawal of the drug, and the interval between the first report of a death attributed to a medicinal product and eventual withdrawal of the product has not improved over the last 60 years. These results suggest that some deaths associated with these products could have been avoided. Manufacturers and regulatory authorities should expedite investigations when deaths are reported as suspected adverse drug reactions and consider early suspensions. Increased transparency in the publication of clinical trials data and improved international co-ordination could shorten the delays in withdrawing dangerous medicinal products after reports of deaths and obviate discrepancies in drug withdrawals in different countries.Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0270-2.
    BMC Medicine 12/2015; 13(1):26. DOI:10.1186/s12916-014-0262-7 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
68 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014