1 / 32

Therapeutics Initiative Drug Assessment Working Group

Jim Wright Ken Bassett Vijaya Musini Ciprian Jauca Lorri Puil Tom Perry, Jr Keith Chambers Barbara Mintzes. Maud van Breemen Benji Heran Michelle Wong Marco Perez Cremona Ticea Gurdial Mattu. Therapeutics Initiative Drug Assessment Working Group. Dupe ( definition ).

angelok
Télécharger la présentation

Therapeutics Initiative Drug Assessment Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jim Wright Ken Bassett Vijaya Musini Ciprian Jauca Lorri Puil Tom Perry, Jr Keith Chambers Barbara Mintzes Maud van Breemen Benji Heran Michelle Wong Marco Perez Cremona Ticea Gurdial Mattu Therapeutics Initiative Drug Assessment Working Group

  2. Dupe (definition) A person who is deluded or deceived by another.

  3. TI Objectives • To attempt not to be DUPED in our assessment of the evidence. • To attempt to establish the benefit/harm relationship for drug interventions in particular clinical settings.

  4. Deficient reporting of Serious Adverse Events in Clinical TrialsJim Wright MD, PhD, FRCP(C) Cox 2 inhibitors Lipid lowering drugs Bupropion

  5. Outline • How to measure the benefit/harm relationship? • A tool: serious adverse events. • Setting where harm exceeds the benefit. • Setting where benefit exceeds the harm. • Setting where benefit equals harm. • Settings where we don’t know.

  6. Serious Adverse Events • Deaths. • Life threatening events (e.g. cancer). • Hospitalizations. • Events leading to prolongation of hospitalization. • Events leading to permanent disability.

  7. Serious Adverse Events • Must be carefully documented and reported to regulatory authorities in all clinical trials. • Total serious adverse events (SAEs) are a measure of both benefit and harm. • If a particular intervention is beneficial the relative ratio (RR) of SAEs for the intervention/comparator will be <1.0

  8. COX 2 selective inhibitors:celecoxib and rofecoxib • Designed to reduce GI toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs. • To be beneficial must be equally effective and have less complicated ulcers (safer than NSAIDs). • Successfully marketed worldwide, therefore they must be better.

  9. Major outcomes in order of most to least serious Outcome Celecoxib% Other% RR95%CI ARR% NNT4 mo Rofecoxib% Naproxen% RR95%CI ARRARI% NNTNNH9 mo Myocardialinfarction 0.3 0.3 0.90.4-2.1 NS NS 0.4 0.1 4.01.3-12 0.3 333 Complicatedulcers 0.3 0.6 0.60.3-1.2 NS NS 0.4 0.9 0.40.2-0.8 0.5 200 Seriousadverse events 4.3 4.2 1.020.8-1.3 NS NS NR NR Symptomaticulcers 0.5 0.7 0.650.4-1.2 NS NS 1.0 2.1 0.50.3-0.7 1.1 91 Withdrawals due to adv. events 18.4 20.6 0.890.8-0.97 2.2 44 16.4 16.1 1.020.9-1.1 NS NS CLASS trial VIGOR trial * * Half ibuprofen and half diclofenacRR=Risk ReductionCI=confidence IntervalARR=Absolute Risk Reduction NNT=Number Needed to Treat to prevent one eventARI=Absolute Risk IncreaseNNH=Number Needed to cause one Harmful eventNS=Non-Significant, NR=Not Reported

  10. FDA review of CLASS and VIGOR studies • No change in labeling. • Data made available on FDA website. • CLASS study in JAMA; one trial, 6 months. • FDA trial protocols: 2 trials, one 12-month (diclofenac) and one 15 month (ibuprofen).

  11. Outcome Celecoxib (n=3987) % Diclofenac + Ibuprofen (n=3981) % RR (95% CI) Serious adverse events 6.8 5.8 1.17 (0.99, 1.39) Complicated ulcers 0.50 0.60 0.83 Other serious adverse events 6.3 5.2 1.21 (1.01, 1.45) Mortality 0.48 0.43 1.12 Myocardial infarction 0.48 0.33 1.45 FDA review of CLASS trials

  12. Outcome Rofecoxib (n=4047) % Naproxen (n=4029) % RR (95% CI) Serious adverse events 9.3 7.8 1.21 (1.04, 1.40) Complicated ulcers 0.40 0.92 0.43 (0.24, 0.78) Other serious adverse events 8.9 6.9 1.29 (1.11, 1.50) Mortality 0.54 0.37 1.46 Myocardial infarction 0.49 0.10 4.9 (1.7, 14.3) FDA review of VIGOR trial

  13. COX 2 selective inhibitors Conclusions • COX 2’s are equieffective to non-selective NSAIDs. • Rofecoxib causes less complicated ulcers than naproxen. • Celecoxib and rofecoxib are overall more dangerous than non-selective NSAIDs (harm exceeds the benefit).

  14. Does lipid lowering therapy cause more benefit than harm? In people without evidence of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention)

  15. AFCAPS/TexCAPS Lovastatin versus placebo for primary prevention JAMA,1998;279:1615-22

  16. Primary Outcome • First major coronary event • Includes: • Fatal or non-fatal MI • Unstable angina • Sudden death

  17. Major coronary event Overall Plac Drug RR CI ARR NNT 5.5% 3.5% 0.63 (0.5-0.8) 2% 50(5 yr)

  18. Serious adverse events (SAE) (AFCAPS) Outcome Drug Placebo RR CI SAE 34.2% 34.1% 1.00 (0.9-1.1) Deaths 4.6% 4.4% 1.04 (0.8-1.4)

  19. SAE / Mortality analysis • Serious adverse events were searched for in the other nine major trials. • SAEs were not reported. • Total mortality, one component of SAEs, was reported.

  20. Primary prevention All-cause mortality Trial (drug) Drug Plac RR CI WHO (clofib) 3.0% 2.4% 1.27 (1.01-1.6) Helsinki (gemf) 2.2% 2.1% 1.06 (0.7-1.6) WOSCOP(prav) 3.2% 4.1% 0.78 (0.6-1.01)

  21. Does lipid lowering therapy cause more benefit than harm? In people with cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention)

  22. Secondary preventionAll-cause mortality Trial (drug) Drug Plac RR CI VA-HIT(gemf) 15.7% 17.4% 0.9 (0.8-1.1) BIP (bezafib) 10.4% 9.9% 1.06 (0.9-1.3) 3 trials (statin) 0.79 (0.7-0.9) ARR = 2.6% NNT = 38 for 5 years

  23. Serious adverse event (mortality) analysis • Supports the use of statins alone in moderate doses for secondary prevention. • Does not support the use of fibrates alone or in combination for primary or secondary prevention. • Does not support the use of statins alone for primary prevention.

  24. Can we use SAE analysis for psychotropic drugs? Bupropion

  25. Bupropion is associated with significant risks and harms • Product monograph says so. • Post marketing surveillance has triggered warnings in Canada and elsewhere. • Seizures, agitation, hallucinations, mania, insomnia, serum sickness, rash etc. • Increased blood pressure, anorexia, weight loss, etc.

  26. How can we estimate the magnitude of the harm? • SAE meta-analysis of all placebo controlled RCTs. • SAE meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing bupropion to other antidepressants. • Limitations: published RCTs often don’t fully report SAEs. • RCTs are mostly short (8 weeks).

  27. What can be done? • Demand an independent audit and publication of SAE data from company. • Design and run large simple long-term RCTs comparing bupropion with other anti-depressants.

  28. SAE (mortality) analysis Benefit to harm balance • Confirms the benefit of some drugs in some settings. • Suggests a lack of overall benefit in some clinical settings. • Demonstrates overall harm in some clinical settings. • Is unknown in most drug intervention settings.

  29. Conclusions • Accept the fact that we have been and will be duped. • Demand reporting of SAEs in RCTs, past present and future. • Demand reduction in SAEs before claiming a health benefit with any intervention. • When an overall health benefit has not been demonstrated or is uncertain do not prescribe or take a drug.

  30. Websitehttp://www.ti.ubc.ca • Includes organization and objectives of the Therapeutics Initiative • Includes all 42 Therapeutics Letters • Includes links to other evidence based web sites • Accessed on average over 2,000 times/day

More Related