Key result
Cilostazol use in patients with peripheral arterial disease was not associated with an increase in major adverse cardiovascular events, including death (OR 0.86), myocardial infarction (OR 1.00), or stroke (OR 1.13).
Why the study?
Does cilostazol increase major adverse cardiovascular events or mortality in patients with peripheral arterial disease, including those with concurrent congestive heart failure?
Observational (n=1,392)
Yes
Does cilostazol increase major adverse cardiovascular events or mortality in patients with peripheral arterial disease, including those with concurrent congestive heart failure?
Effect estimate: OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.63, 1.18)
Text-mining of electronic medical records suggests cilostazol does not increase cardiovascular mortality or MACE in PAD patients, including those with CHF, challenging its current FDA black box warning.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a growing problem with few available therapies. Cilostazol is the only FDA-approved medication with a class I indication for intermittent claudication, but carries a black box warning due to concerns for increased cardiovascular mortality. To assess the validity of this black box warning, we employed a novel text-analytics pipeline to quantify the adverse events associated with Cilostazol use in a clinical setting, including patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the electronic medical records of 1.8 million subjects from the Stanford clinical data warehouse spanning 18 years using a novel text-mining/statistical analytics pipeline. We identified 232 PAD patients taking Cilostazol and created a control group of 1,160 PAD patients not taking this drug using 1:5 propensity-score matching. Over a mean follow up of 4.2 years, we observed no association between Cilostazol use and any major adverse cardiovascular event including stroke (OR = 1.13, CI [0.82, 1.55]), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.00, CI [0.71, 1.39]), or death (OR = 0.86, CI [0.63, 1.18]). Cilostazol was not associated with an increase in any arrhythmic complication. We also identified a subset of CHF patients who were prescribed Cilostazol despite its black box warning, and found that it did not increase mortality in this high-risk group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This proof of principle study shows the potential of text-analytics to mine clinical data warehouses to uncover 'natural experiments' such as the use of Cilostazol in CHF patients. We envision this method will have broad applications for examining difficult to test clinical hypotheses and to aid in post-marketing drug safety surveillance. Moreover, our observations argue for a prospective study to examine the validity of a drug safety warning that may be unnecessarily limiting the use of an efficacious therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leeper et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (n=1,392). Cilostazol vs. No Cilostazol (propensity-score matched control) was evaluated on Death (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63, 1.18). Cilostazol use in patients with peripheral arterial disease was not associated with an increase in major adverse cardiovascular events, including death (OR 0.86), myocardial infarction (OR 1.00), or stroke (OR 1.13).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: