ABSTRACT
Background: Previous studies suggest that aromatase inhibitors (AIs) increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with breast cancer, but it is unclear whether AIs also increase the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the use of AIs was associated with an increased risk of new-onset AF in patients with breast cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis involving 5,707 patients with breast cancer (mean age 63.9 ± 11.2 years and 99.9% women) who received adjunctive hormone therapy with an AI (AI group, n = 4,878) or tamoxifen (tamoxifen group, n = 829) in Hong Kong between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2020. After propensity score matching, there were 1,658 and 829 patients with balanced characteristics in the AI group and tamoxifen group, respectively. Results: After 8,863 patient-years of follow-up, patients who were prescribed AI had a trend toward more new-onset arrhythmias compared with those prescribed tamoxifen (0.62 vs 0.30 per 100 patient-years; crude HR: 2.05; P = 0.053). The difference in arrhythmic risk was mainly driven by a higher incidence rate of new-onset AF in the AI group (0.59 vs 0.27 per 100 patient-years; crude HR: 2.18; P = 0.046). The use of AIs was confirmed to be an independent risk factor for new-onset AF on multivariate analysis (adjusted HR: 2.75; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Among breast cancer patients prescribed adjunctive hormonal therapy, AI was associated with an increased risk of new-onset AF. Regular surveillance for new-onset AF should be considered in breast cancer patients treated with an AI.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of meta-analyses containing potentially redundant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the factors associated with the presence of redundancy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a cross-sectional study, based on a random sample of references (n = 4500) that were published during 2020 and 2021, indexed in PubMed, Embase, or the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and retrieved through comprehensive searches using terms about systematic reviews and meta-analysis. From each systematic review, one meta-analysis fulfilling all the following criteria, if available, was included in this study: (1) assessing the effect of the intervention on a primary outcome of the systematic review; (2) combining RCTs only. The primary outcome was prevalence of meta-analyses containing potentially redundant RCTs. Potentially redundant RCTs referred to the trials that started 1 year after the overall effect estimate from cumulative meta-analysis had been statistically robust, as determined by trial sequential analysis when appropriate. The number of potentially redundant trials (if any) in each eligible meta-analysis and the number of participants involved in those trials were documented and contrasted across groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the factors associated with presence of potential redundancy. RESULTS: Of the 448 eligible meta-analyses, 57 (12.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8-16.2%) contained potentially redundant RCTs. When limited to the 333 low-heterogeneity meta-analyses, the prevalence was 17.1% (95% CI 13.5-21.5%). The total number of potentially redundant RCTs was 295 (involving 85,385 participants), accounting for 38.5% of the RCTs (and 30.3% of the participants) included in the 57 meta-analyses. In these meta-analyses, the median number of potentially redundant RCTs and the participants involved were 2 (range: 1-50) and 352 (range: 17-26997), respectively. Potentially redundant RCTs were more likely to be present in the meta-analyses evaluating pharmaceutical intervention (odds ratio [OR] 2.31, 95% CI 1.16-4.49), assessing efficacy outcomes (OR 7.25, 95% CI 0.85-61.87), containing more than 5 RCTs (OR 6.47, 95% CI 3.22-12.99), or with the earliest RCT reporting statistically significant effect estimate (OR 5.30, 95% CI 2.64-10.64). CONCLUSION: This study found that 12.7% to 17.1% of recently published meta-analyses contained potentially redundant RCTs, highlighting the importance of conducting or examining systematic reviews of existing evidence to justify new RCTs. More importantly, the study identified some scenarios in which redundancy was more likely to occur and thus has implications for trialists, funding agencies, ethics committees, and journal editors.
