A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab and Evolocumab on Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Objectives. The aim of this study was to provide the first study to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of PCSK9-mAbs in the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Methods. A computer was used to search the electronic Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase databases for clinical trials using the following search terms: “AMG 145”, “evolocumab”, “SAR236553/REGN727”, “alirocumab”, “RG7652”, “LY3015014”, “RN316/bococizumab”, “PCSK9”, and “familial hypercholesterolemia” up to November 2020. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and publication bias was evaluated by a contour-enhanced funnel plot and the Harbord modification of the Egger test. After obtaining the data, a meta-analysis was performed using R software, version 4.0.3. Results. A meta-analysis was performed on 7 clinical trials (926 total patients). The results showed that PCSK9-mAbs reduced the LDL-C level by the greatest margin, WMD −49.14%, 95% CI: −55.81 to −42.47%, on FH versus control groups. PCSK9-mAbs also significantly reduced lipoprotein (a) (Lp (a)), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein-B (Apo-B), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels and increased HDL-C and apolipoprotein-A1 (Apo-A1) levels of beneficial lipoproteins. Moreover, no significant difference was found between PCSK9-mAbs treatment and placebo in common adverse events, serious events, and laboratory adverse events. Conclusion. PCSK9-mAbs significantly decreased LDL-C and other lipid levels with satisfactory safety and tolerability in FH treatment.

Download Full-text

Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2020.06.07.20124677 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pinky Kotecha ◽

Alexander Light ◽

Enrico Checcucci ◽

Daniele Amparore ◽

Cristian Fiori ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Clinical Improvement ◽

Case Reports ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

Download Full-text

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy ◽

10.1177/1945892419884774 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (2) ◽

pp. 196-208 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Chenjie Yu ◽

Kaijian Wang ◽

Xinyan Cui ◽

Ling Lu ◽

Jianfei Dong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Symptom Score ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Life Questionnaire ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with myelofibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.7045 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 7045-7045

Author(s):

Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ◽

Amar Sheth ◽

Shaurey Vetsa ◽

Alyssa Grimshaw ◽

Smith Giri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Vocabulary ◽

Hematopoietic Cell ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Free Text ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Significant Difference

7045 Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) remains the only potentially curative therapeutic modality for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis (MF). However, many patients (pts) are ineligible for allo-HCT and transplant-related mortality can be substantial. Data on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT are mixed and largely derived from retrospective studies. Methods: To synthesize the available evidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to October 11, 2020 for studies on allo-HCT in MF. Databases were searched using a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms for relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of allo-HCT in pts with primary and secondary MF. This study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020188706). Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the co-primary outcomes of 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 4247 studies after duplicate removal. 393 studies were assessed as full-texts for eligibility and 43 studies (38 retrospective, 1 prospective study, 4 phase II clinical trials) with 8739 pts were included in this meta-analysis. Study quality was limited by the absence of randomized clinical trials and retrospective design of most studies. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS were 66.7% (95% confidence interval: 63.5-69.8%), 64.4% (57.6-70.6%), and 55.0% (51.8-58.3%), respectively. Rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year non-relapse mortality were 25.9% (23.3-28.7%), 29.7% (24.5-35.4%), and 30.5% (25.9-35.5%), respectively. Among evaluable studies, rates of 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year relapse-free survival were 65.3% (56.5-73.1%), 56.2% (41.6-69.8%), and 53.6% (39.9-66.9%), respectively. Adverse events related to all-HCT were manageable with rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease in 44.0% (39.6-48.4%; grade III/IV: 15.2%) and 46.5% of patients (42.2-50.8%; extensive or moderate/severe: 26.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses did not show any significant difference between conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative vs reduced-intensity), median patient age, and proportion of DIPSS-intermediate-2/high pts. Conclusions: Given the poor prognosis of patients not receiving transplant and in the absence of curative non-transplant therapies, our results support consideration of allo-HCT for eligible pts with MF. However, additional studies in pre- and post-allo-HCT setting are necessary to enhance patient selection (e.g. by incorporation of molecular markers), to optimize transplant strategies (e.g. peri-transplant ruxolitinib, conditioning regimens, and donor selection), symptom management and decrease non-relapse mortality.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Local Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy ◽

10.1177/19458924211050547 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194589242110505

Author(s):

Wanting Zhu ◽

Pei Gao ◽

Qidi Zhang ◽

Jianjun Chen

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Subcutaneous Immunotherapy ◽

Life Questionnaire ◽

Immunologic Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Local Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Significant Difference

Background Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been used for treating local allergic rhinitis (LAR) patients. However, the clinical efficacy and safety were still questioned. Objective This study was designed to estimate the efficacy and safety of SCIT for treating LAR patients through meta-analysis. Methods We systemically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase publications. Randomized, double-blind, clinical trials for the efficacy and safety of Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for LAR were included. A meta-analysis of 4 clinical endpoints (combined symptom and medication scores [CSMS], symptom scores [SS], medication scores [MS] and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire [RQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs)) was performed after bias and heterogeneity assessments. The immunologic response results were summarized. Results Four RCTs with 134 patients were included. Four studies for analyzing primary outcomes (CSMS, SS, MS) and AEs, three for RQLQ results. The results indicated an important significant difference between SCIT and placebo groups, list as follows: CSMS (SMD = −2.42, 95% CI: −3.60 to −1.25, P < .0001), SS (SMD = −2.08, 95% CI −3.68 to −0.48, P = .01), MS (SMD = −1.43, 95% CI: −2.65 to −0.21, P = 0.02), RQLQ (SMD = −0.70, 95% CI −1.29 to −0.12, P = .02), Local AEs (RR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.77, P = .04). For immunologic response, significantly increased serum sIgG4 levels and improvements of allergen tolerance was observed after SCIT. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that SCIT has a significant effect on improving symptoms and reducing medicine consumption for LAR patients. Larger and multicenter clinical trials are needed to clarify the safety and long-term efficacy.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

10.1101/2020.06.05.20122705 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Standard Care ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase III Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9060582 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 582

Author(s):

Haoyue Cheng ◽

Zhicheng Peng ◽

Wenliang Luo ◽

Shuting Si ◽

Minjia Mo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Common People ◽

Random Effects Models ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽

Phase Iii Trials

Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09–0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19–0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03–2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04–2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02–6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52–9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21–1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84–3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80–1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11–2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Systematic review and meta-analysis of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of older adults with depression: questionable benefit and considerations for frailty

BMC Geriatrics ◽

10.1186/s12877-019-1327-4 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Laurie Mallery ◽

Tanya MacLeod ◽

Michael Allen ◽

Pamela McLean-Veysey ◽

Natasha Rodney-Cail ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Older Adults ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Second Generation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Frail Older Adults ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Frail older adults are commonly prescribed antidepressants. Yet, there is little evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants to treat depression with concomitant frailty. To better understand this issue, we examined the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of older adults with depression and then considered implications for frailty. Methods Due to the absence of therapeutic studies of frail older adults with depression, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized controlled trials that compared antidepressants versus placebo for adults with depression, age 65 years or older. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, reference lists from meta-analyses/studies, hand searches of publication lists, and related articles on PubMed. Outcomes included rates of response, remission, and adverse events. After evaluating the data, we applied a frailty-informed framework to consider how the evidence could be applied to frailty. Results Nine trials were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2704). Subjects had moderate to severe depression. For older adults with depression, there was no statistically significant difference in response or remission to second-generation antidepressants compared to placebo. Response occurred in 45.3% of subjects receiving an antidepressant compared to 40.5% receiving placebo (RR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.96 – 1.37, p = 0.12, I2 = 71%). Remission occurred in 33.1% with antidepressant versus 31.3% with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 – 1.31, p = 0.30, I2 = 56%) (Figure 2 and 3). There were more withdrawals due to adverse events with antidepressants, 13% versus 5.8% (RR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.45–3.63; p < 0.001; I2 = 61%; NNH 14, 95% CI:10–28). Implications for frailty Subjects in the meta-analysis did not have obvious characteristics of frailty. Using framework questions to consider the implications of frailty, we hypothesize that, like older adults, frail individuals with depression may not respond to antidepressants. Further, observational studies suggest that those who are frail may be less responsive to antidepressants compared to the non-frail. Given the vulnerability of frailty, adverse events may be more burdensome. Conclusions Second-generation antidepressants have uncertain benefit for older adults with depression and cause more adverse events compared to placebo. Until further research clarifies benefit, careful consideration of antidepressant prescribing with frailty is warranted.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials ◽

10.2174/1574887114666191105152404 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 34-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammed Rashid ◽

Madhan Ramesh ◽

K. Shamshavali ◽

Amit Dang ◽

Himanshu Patel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Download Full-text

Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9080939 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. 939

Author(s):

Jiaxin Chen ◽

Yuangui Cai ◽

Yicong Chen ◽

Anthony P. Williams ◽

Yifang Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Download Full-text