Even more suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo

BACKGROUND: Following our previous publication we have received critical comments to our conclusions as well as new data that are strengthening our findings. RESULTS: With the new data, 11 suicide attempts among patients on paroxetine against 1 among patients on placebo, we found with a Bayesian technique that the posterior probability that medication with paroxetine is associated with an increased intensity per year of a suicide attempt is from 0.98 to 0.99, depending on the prior. We found that the comment to our article by GSK representatives contained errors, misunderstanding and unwillingness to accept Bayesian principles in the analysis of clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We were in our previous publication, with preliminary data and a Bayesian approach, able to raise a concern that suicide attempts might be connected with the use of paroxetine. This suspicion has now been confirmed

Suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of unpublished data on the effects of antidepressants on children has suggested unfavourable risk-benefit profiles for some of the drugs. Recent meta-analyses of studies on adults have indicated similar effects. We obtained unpublished data for paroxetine that have so far not been included in these analyses. METHODS: The documentation for drug registration contained 16 studies in which paroxetine had been randomised against placebo. We registered the number of suicides, suicide attempts and ideation. We corrected for duration of medication and placebo treatment and used a standard Bayesian statistical approach with varying priors. RESULTS: There were 7 suicide attempts in patients on the drug and 1 in a patient on placebo. We found that the probability of increased intensity of suicide attempts per year in adults taking paroxetine was 0.90 with a "pessimistic" prior, and somewhat less with two more neutral priors. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the results of recent meta-analyses. Patients and doctors should be warned that the increased suicidal activity observed in children and adolescents taking certain antidepressant drugs may also be present in adults

Deficient supplies of drugs for life threatening diseases in an African community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Malawi essential drugs are provided free of charge to patients at all public health facilities in order to ensure equitable access to health care. The country thereby spends about 30% of the national health budget on drugs. In order to investigate the level of drug shortages and eventually find the reasons for the drugs shortages in Malawi, we studied the management of the drug supplies for common and life threatening diseases such as pneumonia and malaria in a random selection of health centres.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In July and August 2005 we visited eight out of a total of 37 health centres chosen at random in the Lilongwe District, Malawi. We recorded the logistics of eight essential and widely used drugs which according to the treatment guidelines should be available at all health centres. Five drugs are used regularly to treat pneumonia and three others to treat acute malaria. Out-of-stock situations in the course of one year were recorded retrospectively. We compared the quantity of each drug recorded on the Stock Cards with the actual stock of the drug on the shelves at the time of audit. We reviewed 8,968 Patient Records containing information on type and amount of drugs prescribed during one month.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On average, drugs for treating pneumonia were out of stock for six months during one year of observation (median value 167 days); anti-malarial drugs were lacking for periods ranging from 42 to138 days. The cross-sectional audit was even more negative, but here too the situation was more positive for anti-malarial drugs. The main reason for the shortage of drugs was insufficient deliveries from the Regional Medical Store. Benzyl penicillin was in shortest supply (4% received). The median value for non-availability was 240 days in the course of a year. The supply was better for anti-malarial drugs, except for quinine injections (9 %). Only 66 % of Stock Card records of quantities received were reflected in Patient Records showing quantities dispensed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that for the eight index drugs the levels of supply are unacceptable. The main reason for the observed shortage of drugs at the health centres was insufficient deliveries from the Regional Medical Store. A difference between the information recorded on the Stock Cards at the health centres and that recorded in the Patient Records may have contributed to the overall poor drug supply situation. In order to ensure equitable access to life saving drugs, logistics in general should be put in order before specific disease management programmes are initiated.</p

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease? Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument. Results: We included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant dif-ferences, and with no drugclass standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)- inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes

Differential effects of antihypertensive drugs in a Bayesian perspective

Background: According to published data, the ability to prevent various hypertension related events differs between the various anti-hypertensive drug groups. Although absolute drug effects with similar drugs also differ among the various studies, relative drug effects could be considered constant. We therefore explored the possibility of drawing statistically valid conclusions about the differences between various drug groups by doing an overview of published data. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis using a Bayesian fixed effect model in which we brought together 27 published studies. We chose to always relate the drug effects to the number of events observed with placebo drugs. We therefore obtained results both from studies reporting the effects of the newer drugs when tested against diuretics and beta-blockers, and from studies in which diuretics and beta-blockers had been tested against placebo. We constructed the posterior probability distributions of the relative effects of ACE-inhibitors versus calcium antagonists with three different endpoints: stroke, coronary disease and heart failure. We then calculated point estimates of effects with 95% credibility intervals. As an intermediate step in this procedure we obtained similar information about the effects of the three groups of active drugs, ACE-inhibitors, calcium antagonists and diuretics or beta-blockers, tested against placebo. Findings: ACE-inhibitors and calcium antagonists have an almost identical ability to prevent stroke in hypertensive individuals with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.04. On the other hand, calcium antagonists reduce coronary disease by only 9% relative to placebo. When ACE-inhibitors and calcium antagonists are compared by the Bayesian method, the outcome is a 14% difference in favour of the ACE-inhibitors to prevent coronary disease, with a credibility interval reaching identity. Nor do calcium antagonists do as well as diuretics or _-blockers in this respect, RR = 1.11 with 95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.22. All the tested drug groups have a profound preventive effect on the occurrence of heart failure when given to hypertensive patients, showing reductions of 44% to 56%. When ACE-inhibitors are compared with calcium antagonists the risk ratio is 0.79, with a credibility interval 0.65 to 0.95. Interpretation: The conclusion of our analysis is a statistically significant difference between ACE-inhibitors and calcium antagonists in respect of effects on coronary disease and heart failure when treating hypertensive individuals, ACE-inhibitors being more efficacious. The difference is modest and both drug groups are acceptable as first line treatments together with diuretics and beta-blockers. There are no differences in the effect on strok