Search

Introduction: Results from two long-term studies (ROADMAP and ORIENT) indicated a numerical imbalance in the number of cardiovascular deaths between the olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and placebo groups., Objective: Our objective was to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis to provide more complete information regarding OM-associated cardiovascular risks and/or benefits., Methods: We created an integrated database based on 191 clinical trials from the OM development program. Events were identified and adjudicated by an independent, blinded clinical events committee. The incidence of major cardiovascular events and total mortality for OM versus placebo/active control were evaluated, and the effect of OM on cardiovascular mortality (main endpoint of interest) and morbidity was calculated using a two-stage approach (Tian method)., Results: A total of 46 studies (~27,000 patients) met the US FDA-specified inclusion criteria (phase II-IV randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies [OM-based monotherapy or combination, double-blind period ≥28 days] and adult patients). The incidence of known adjudicated endpoints in the analysis of all studies combined was low among OM (0.11-0.53 %) and placebo/active control (0.08-0.76 %) groups. For cardiovascular mortality, the estimated risk difference (OM vs. control) was 0.00070 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.0011 to 0.0024; p = 0.60); the risk difference for each endpoint was <1/1000, with no statistically significant difference between groups. Results were similar with and without ROADMAP and ORIENT., Discussion: The results from this meta-analysis did not show a clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference in cardiovascular risk between OM and the placebo/active control groups, and thus did not corroborate the numerical imbalance observed in ROADMAP and ORIENT.