Observational studyThe lancet. Healthy longevity2021
Observed and expected serious adverse event rates in randomised clinical trials for hypertension: an observational study comparing trials that do and do not focus on older people.
Observational study in The lancet. Healthy longevity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of intravitreal VEGF inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2023Pooled it
- Treatment effect modification due to comorbidity: Individual participant data meta-analyses of 120 randomised controlled trials.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of Using Biomarkers in Eligibility Criteria in Acute Kidney Injury Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Methodological Meta-Analysis.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Risk of falls and syncope across frailty levels in hypertensive older adults: a longitudinal study.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Bedside implications of the use of surrogate endpoints in solid and haematological cancers: implications for our reliance on PFS, DFS, ORR, MRD and more.BMJ oncology · 2024Review
- Why are older adults living with the complexity of multiple long-term conditions, frailty and a recent deterioration in health under-served by research? A narrative synthesis review of the literature.Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2023Review
- The association between antihypertensive treatment and serious adverse events by age and frailty: A cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Antihypertensive Deprescribing in Older Adults: a Practical Guide.Current hypertension reports · 2022Review
- Observational
- Multimorbidity.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
- Pragmatic Clinical Studies: An Emerging Clinical Research Discipline for Improving Evidence-Based Practice of Cardiovascular Diseases in Asia.Korean circulation journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRepresentativeness of antihypertensive drug trials is uncertain, as many trials recruit few or no older people. Some trials specifically recruit older participants to address this. Here, we assess the representativeness of trials focusing on older people by comparing the rates of serious adverse events in these trials with the rates in trials of a general adult population (ie, standard trials), and comparing these findings to the rate of hospitalisations and deaths in people with hypertension starting a similar treatment in routine clinical practice.
methodsFor this observational study, we identified randomised controlled trials (phase 2/3, 3, or 4) of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) drugs for hypertension registered from 1999 onwards with ClinicalTrials.gov. Serious adverse events are routinely included in trial reports and are predominantly accounted for by all-cause hospitalisations and deaths. We compared serious adverse event rates in older-people trials (minimum inclusion age ≥60 years) and standard trials (minimum inclusion age <60 years) using Poisson regression models adjusted for trial characteristics (drug type, comparison type, phase, and outcome type). We identified a community cohort of 56 036 adults with hypertension commencing similar drugs to obtain an expected rate of emergency or urgent hospitalisations or deaths, and compared this rate to observed serious adverse event rates in each trial, adjusted for age and sex. For standard trials and for older-people trials, we calculated the standardised ratio of the expected to the observed rate of serious adverse events using Poisson regression models.
findingsWe included 110 trials, of which 11 (10%) were older-people trials and 99 (90%) were standard trials. Older-people trials had a higher rate of serious adverse events than did standard trials (median events per person per year 0·18 [IQR 0·12-0·29]
interpretationTrials report substantially fewer serious adverse events than expected from rates of hospitalisations and deaths among similar-aged people receiving equivalent treatments in the community. Serious adverse event rates might be a useful metric to assess trial representativeness. Clinicians should be cautious when applying trial recommendations to older people, even when trials focus on older participants.
fundingWellcome Trust, Medical Research Council.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.