Kvasz M, Allen I E, Gordon M J, Ro E Y, Estok R, Olkin I, Ross S D
MetaWorks, Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
MedGenMed. 2000 Apr 27;2(2):E3.
To replicate and to critique a recently published meta-analysis[1] of the incidence of nonpreventable serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitalized patients, to better understand its results and conclusions.
The published methods described in the meta-analysis of Lazarou and colleagues were followed.[1] This meta-analysis reviewed 30 original publications describing 39 prospective studies. In each study, the numbers of patients with nonpreventable ADRs, probably or definitely related to drugs, were sought to allow calculation of the incidence of "all-severities," serious and fatal, ADRs. In the original meta-analysis, these ADR incidences were then pooled to provide estimates of the incidence in all hospitalized patients. In our analysis, the original studies were examined by 2 investigators for consistency with the study search and inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis by Lazarou and colleagues, as well as accuracy and appropriateness of data extraction, meta-analysis, and conclusions.
Multiple sources of heterogeneity among studies and data were found and include important differences in populations and hospital wards monitored, surveillance techniques, ADR definitions, determination of preventability of ADRs, distinguishing relationship to drugs, and in formats of reporting ADRs (by numbers of events or by patients). Imputations of event numerators made by the authors of the original meta-analysis were questionable and may overestimate the results of any individual study. With regard to fatal ADRs, the problem of small numbers of events is likely to introduce large errors in incidence estimates. Simple pooling of fatal event frequencies from only those studies specifically reporting the number of fatal ADRs, as was done in the meta-analysis of Lazarou and colleagues, is likely to dramatically overestimate the death rate.
Meta-analysis was invalid because of heterogeneity of the studies. Most of these studies did not report the data needed for incidence calculations. The methodology used was seriously flawed, and no conclusions regarding ADR incidence rates in the hospitalized population in the United States should be made on the basis of the original meta-analysis.
重复并评论最近发表的一项关于住院患者中不可预防的严重和致命药物不良反应(ADR)发生率的荟萃分析[1],以更好地理解其结果和结论。
遵循Lazarou及其同事的荟萃分析中描述的已发表方法[1]。该荟萃分析回顾了30篇原始出版物,这些出版物描述了39项前瞻性研究。在每项研究中,寻找与药物可能或肯定相关的不可预防的ADR患者数量,以便计算“所有严重程度”、严重和致命ADR的发生率。在原始荟萃分析中,然后汇总这些ADR发生率,以估计所有住院患者中的发生率。在我们的分析中,由两名研究人员检查原始研究,以确定其与Lazarou及其同事的荟萃分析的研究搜索和纳入标准的一致性,以及数据提取、荟萃分析和结论的准确性和适当性。
发现研究和数据之间存在多种异质性来源,包括所监测的人群和医院病房、监测技术、ADR定义、ADR可预防性的确定、与药物关系的区分以及ADR报告格式(按事件数量或按患者)方面的重要差异。原始荟萃分析的作者对事件分子的估算存在疑问,可能高估了任何一项单独研究的结果。关于致命ADR,事件数量较少的问题可能会在发生率估计中引入较大误差。仅对那些专门报告致命ADR数量的研究进行致命事件频率的简单汇总,就像Lazarou及其同事的荟萃分析中所做的那样,很可能会大幅高估死亡率。
由于研究的异质性,荟萃分析无效。这些研究中的大多数没有报告发生率计算所需的数据。所使用的方法存在严重缺陷,不应基于原始荟萃分析得出关于美国住院人群ADR发生率的结论。