Why the study?
Does vandetanib increase the risk of hypertension in cancer patients?
Does vandetanib increase the risk of hypertension in cancer patients?
Vandetanib significantly increases the risk of all-grade and high-grade hypertension in cancer patients, necessitating appropriate cardiovascular monitoring and treatment.
Warrants proactive BP monitoring and management with vandetanib; confirms substantial hypertension risk across trials.
AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials to determine incidence rate and overall risk of hypertension with vandetanib in cancer patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for studies published up to March 2012 was performed. Summary incidence rates, relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials. RESULTS: A total of 11 trials with 3154 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The summary incidences of all-grade and high-grade hypertension in patients with cancer were 24.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.1-30.2%] and 6.4% (95% CI, 3.3-9.5%), respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the pooled incidences of all-grade and high-grade hypertension were 21.8% [95% CI, 15-30.5%] and 7.6% (95% CI, 2.8-18.8%), respectively, among non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, and 32.1% (95% CI: 27.3-37.3%) and 8.8% (5.9%-12.9%), respectively, among MTC patients, and 15.4 (95% CI: 3.2-33.7%) and 3.4% (95% CI: 1%-11.1%) respectively, among non-MTC/NSCLC tumors patients. Furthermore, vandetanib was associated with a significant increased risk of all-grade hypertension (RR 5.1, 95% CI: 3.76-6.92, P = 0.000) and high-grade hypertension (RR 8.06, 95% CI: 3.41-19.04, P = 0.000) in comparison with controls. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant risk of developing hypertension in cancer patients receiving vandetanib. Appropriate monitoring and treatment is strongly recommended to prevent cardiovascular complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qi et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: