scholarly journals Evaluation of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid review

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qianhui Wu ◽  
Matthew Z. Dudley ◽  
Xinghui Chen ◽  
Xufang Bai ◽  
Kaige Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Protein Subunit ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Systemic Reactions ◽  
Reporting Rates

Abstract Background The rapid process of research and development and lack of follow-up time post-vaccination aroused great public concern about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. To provide comprehensive overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines by using meta-analysis technique. Methods English-language articles and results posted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PMC, official regulatory websites, and post-authorization safety surveillance data were searched through June 12, 2021. Publications disclosing safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines in humans were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled incidence and the pooled rate ratio (RR) of safety outcomes of COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms. Results A total of 87 publications with safety data from clinical trials and post-authorization studies of 19 COVID-19 vaccines on 6 different platforms were included. The pooled rates of local and systemic reactions were significantly lower among inactivated vaccines (23.7%, 21.0%), protein subunit vaccines (33.0%, 22.3%), and DNA vaccines (39.5%, 29.3%), compared to RNA vaccines (89.4%, 83.3%), non-replicating vector vaccines (55.9%, 66.3%), and virus-like particle vaccines (100.0%, 78.9%). Solicited injection-site pain was the most common local reactions, and fatigue and headache were the most common systemic reactions. The frequency of vaccine-related serious adverse events was low (< 0.1%) and balanced between treatment groups. Vaccine platforms and age groups of vaccine recipients accounted for much of the heterogeneity in safety profiles between COVID-19 vaccines. Reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization observational studies were similar to results from clinical trials. Crude reporting rates of adverse events from post-authorization safety monitoring (passive surveillance) were lower than in clinical trials and varied between countries. Conclusions Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile. Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further define the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety profile of poxviral vaccines: NCI experience.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 85-85
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Kim ◽  
Jennifer L. Marte ◽  
Marijo Bilusic ◽  
Nishith K. Singh ◽  
Christopher Ryan Heery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Mucin 1 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Gm Csf

85 Background: Recombinant poxviruses have been developed as therapeutic cancer vaccines. Here, we report the safety data from NCI clinical trials with poxviral vaccines. Methods: We evaluated all vaccine injections from 215 patients in 8 clinical trials involving poxviral viral vaccines. The Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Institutional Review Board, and NCI Scientific Review Committee approved all of these trials. Vaccines were consisted of recombinant vaccinia and recombinant fowlpox encoded with 3 human costimulatory molecules (TRICOM), and prostate specific antigen (PSA), or carcinoembryonic antigen, and/or mucin-1. Vaccines were administered at doses between 1.2x108 to 2x109 pfu, subcutaneously, in all patients. Twenty-one patients were also vaccinated intra-tumorally. 84 patients also received other concurrent treatment modalities, such as radiation, celecoxib, ipilimumab, samarium-153, or flutamide on 4 of these trials. All 8 clinical trials involved granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) 100mcg, or recombinant fowlpox encoding GM-CSF at 1x 108pfu as an immune adjuvant. Here, we report here the grade 2 or higher adverse events given at least a possible attribution to vaccine. Results: A total of 1,348 poxviral injections were given in 215 patients. No contact transmission, inadvertent inoculation, or any serious adverse events (AEs) related to vaccinia was observed. Below is the summary of proportion of vaccine administrations associated with specific AEs. Conclusions: These data demonstrate a favorable safety profile of the poxviral vaccines at a broad range of doses, routes of administration, in combination with other treatments, and in various tumor types. Clinical trial information: NCT00060528, NCT00096551, NCT00088413, NCT00081848, NCT00113984, NCT00450619, NCT00450463. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Assessment of the Clinical Trials Safety Profile of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors Among Patients With Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Tian ◽  
Alan Huang ◽  
Yue Yang ◽  
Qi Dang ◽  
Qing Wen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

BackgroundUnderstanding the safety and adverse event profiles of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is important in guiding cancer immunotherapy. Consequently, we designed this meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials involving cancer patients.MethodsFour safety indicators comprising treatment-related adverse events, death, discontinuation of therapy and grades 3–5 adverse events were evaluated using the random effect model. The quality of enrolled trials was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsForty-four clinical trials were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with chemotherapy, the risk of death due to the use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was much lower than that experienced in the control group (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: [0.47, 0.91], I2 = 0%, Z = 2.52 (P = 0.01)). Similar observations were apparent regarding the other three indicators of safety and also when the use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone is compared with the combined use of PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4. When used together with chemotherapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increased the incidence of the adverse events as compared to the use of chemotherapy alone. Increased risks for adverse events were also noticed with the use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors over the use of a placebo.ConclusionThe use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone is associated with a better safety profile compared to either the use of chemotherapy or the use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with other anticancer regimens.

scholarly journals Serious adverse events following treatment of visceral leishmaniasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0009302
Author(s):  
Sauman Singh-Phulgenda ◽  
Prabin Dahal ◽  
Roland Ngu ◽  
Brittany J. Maguire ◽  
Alice Hawryszkiewycz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Visceral Leishmaniasis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eastern Africa ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Background Despite a historical association with poor tolerability, a comprehensive review on safety of antileishmanial chemotherapies is lacking. We carried out an update of a previous systematic review of all published clinical trials in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) from 1980 to 2019 to document any reported serious adverse events (SAEs). Methods For this updated systematic review, we searched the following databases from 1st Jan 2016 through 2nd of May 2019: PUBMED, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and the Global Index Medicus. We included randomised and non-randomised interventional studies aimed at assessing therapeutic efficacy and extracted the number of SAEs reported within the first 30 days of treatment initiation. The incidence rate of death (IRD) from individual treatment arms were combined in a meta-analysis using random effects Poisson regression. Results We identified 157 published studies enrolling 35,376 patients in 347 treatment arms. Pentavalent antimony was administered in 74 (21.3%), multiple-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in 52 (15.0%), amphotericin b deoxycholate in 51 (14.7%), miltefosine in 33 (9.5%), amphotericin b fat/lipid/colloid/cholesterol in 31 (8.9%), and single-dose L-AmB in 17 (4.9%) arms. There was a total of 804 SAEs reported of which 793 (including 428 deaths) were extracted at study arm level (11 SAEs were reported at study level only). During the first 30 days, there were 285 (66.6%) deaths with the overall IRD estimated at 0.068 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.041–0.114; I2 = 81.4%; 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.001–2.779] per 1,000 person-days at risk; the rate was 0.628 [95% CI: 0.368–1.021; I2 = 82.5%] in Eastern Africa, and 0.041 [95% CI: 0.021–0.081; I2 = 68.1%] in the Indian Subcontinent. In 21 study arms which clearly indicated allowing the inclusion of patients with HIV co-infections the IRD was 0.575 [95% CI: 0.244–1.355; I2 = 91.9%] compared to 0.043 [95% CI: 0.020–0.090; I2 = 62.5%] in 160 arms which excluded HIV co-infections. Conclusion Mortality within the first 30 days of VL treatment initiation was a rarely reported event in clinical trials with an overall estimated rate of 0.068 deaths per 1,000 person-days at risk, though it varied across regions and patient populations. These estimates may serve as a benchmark for future trials against which mortality data from prospective and pharmacovigilance studies can be compared. The methodological limitations exposed by our review support the need to assemble individual patient data (IPD) to conduct robust IPD meta-analyses and generate stronger evidence from existing trials to support treatment guidelines and guide future research.

scholarly journals The safety, tolerability and mortality reduction efficacy of remdesivir; based on randomized clinical trials, observational and case studies reported safety outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110425
Author(s):  
Chenchula Santenna ◽  
Kota Vidyasagar ◽  
Krishna Chaitanya Amarneni ◽  
Sai Nikhila Ghanta ◽  
Balakrishnan Sadasivam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Mortality Reduction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Seven Qi-Tonifying Chinese Medicine Injections for AECOPD Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Xueyi Deng ◽  
Fuqin Kang ◽  
Xueyin Chen ◽  
Jiaqi Lai ◽  
Xuanchen Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Introduction. Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) imposes a large burden on economy and society worldwide. In addition to western medicine, multiple kinds of qi-tonifying Chinese medicine injections have been widely used in China as adjunctive treatments. Previous small-sample clinical trials have proven their efficacy in the treatment of AECOPD. However, data on comparative effectiveness and safety of qi-tonifying injections are limited. We conducted this network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of 7 commonly used qi-tonifying injections in patients with AECOPD. Methods. Literature search was conducted through electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang database, and VIP database. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy of any of these 7 qi-tonifying injections were included. The primary outcome was lung function (FEV1 and FVC). R 4.0.0 and STATA 12.0 were adopted to perform the network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics. Results. A total of 36 RCTs involving 2657 participants were included. The results of network meta-analyses indicated that Chuankezhi injection (CKZ) combined with routine treatment (RT) was superior to other qi-tonifying injections combined with RT in terms of FEV1 improvement (MD = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.22, 1.04). For improving FVC, Shengmai injection (SGM) combined with RT showed the greatest therapeutic effect (MD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.61). Moreover, SGM combined with RT revealed the best estimates for response rate (MD = 4.00, 95% CI: 1.34, 13.63). The main adverse events in this study were gastrointestinal reactions and injection site reactions. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion. In this network meta-analysis, SGM and CKZ were potential best adjunctive therapies in the treatment of AECOPD.

scholarly journals Safety of Cerebrolysin for Neurorecovery After Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Twelve Randomized-Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Strilciuc ◽  
László Vécsei ◽  
Dana Boering ◽  
Aleš Pražnikar ◽  
Peter Riederer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

We performed a systematic search and meta-analysis of available literature to determine the safety profile of Cerebrolysin in acute ischemic stroke, filling existing safety information gaps and inconsistent results. We searched EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database, 1947 to March 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2021), CENTRAL (1948 to March 2021) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1995 to March 2021). Data collection and analysis was conducted using methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. All safety outcomes were analyzed based on risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals. The meta-analysis pooled 2202 patients from twelve randomized clinical trials, registering non-statistically significant (p&amp;gt;0.05) differences between Cerebrolysin and placebo throughout main and subgroup analyses. The lowest rate of Serious Adverse Events (SAE), as compared to placebo, was observed for the highest dose of Cerebrolysin (50 mL), highlighting a moderat reduction (RR = 0.6). We observed a tendency of superiority of Cerebrolysin regarding SAE in high dose treatment courses for moderate-severe ischemic stroke, suggesting some effect of the agent against adverse events. This comprehensive safety meta-analysis confirms the safety profile for patients treated with Cerebrolysin after acute ischemic stroke, as compared to placebo.

scholarly journals Safety of Cerebrolysin for Neurorecovery after Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Twelve Randomized-Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 1297
Author(s):  
Stefan Strilciuc ◽  
László Vécsei ◽  
Dana Boering ◽  
Aleš Pražnikar ◽  
Oliver Kaut ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
High Dose

We perforMed a systematic search and meta-analysis of available literature to determine the safety profile of Cerebrolysin in acute ischemic stroke, filling existing safety information gaps and inconsistent results. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials up to the end of February 2021. Data collection and analysis were conducted using methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. All safety outcomes were analyzed based on risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals. The meta-analysis pooled 2202 patients from twelve randomized clinical trials, registering non-statistically significant (p > 0.05) differences between Cerebrolysin and placebo throughout main and subgroup analyses. The lowest rate of Serious Adverse Events (SAE), as compared to placebo, was observed for the highest dose of Cerebrolysin (50 mL), highlighting a moderate reduction (RR = 0.6). We observed a tendency of superiority of Cerebrolysin regarding SAE in high dose treatment courses for moderate-severe ischemic stroke, suggesting some effect of the agent against adverse events. This comprehensive safety meta-analysis confirms the safety profile for patients treated with Cerebrolysin after acute ischemic stroke, as compared to placebo.

Safety of high-dose ivermectin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Navarro ◽  
Daniel Camprubí ◽  
Ana Requena-Méndez ◽  
Dora Buonfrate ◽  
Giovanni Giorli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Neglected Tropical Diseases ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Organ System ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Level Control ◽  
Research Activities

Abstract Background Ivermectin is a key anthelmintic for the control of neglected tropical diseases. The main indications for population-level control with ivermectin through mass drug administration are onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis; however, there is interest in using higher, fixed-dose regimens for the control of scabies, soil-transmitted helminths and malaria. Safety data for these higher-dose regimens are needed. Methods A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the safety and doses of ivermectin was conducted. Eligible studies reported patient-level data and, for the meta-analysis, clinical trials reporting data on doses ≥200 and ≥400 μg/kg were included. Incidence ratios were used to compare adverse events by severity and organ system affected. Results The systematic search identified six studies for inclusion, revealing no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin. Organ system involvement only showed an increase in ocular events in the higher-dose group in one trial for the treatment of onchocerciasis, all of them transient and mild to moderate in intensity. Conclusions Although within this review the safety of high-dose ivermectin appears to be comparable to standard doses, there are not enough data to support a recommendation for its use in higher-than-approved doses. Ocular adverse events, despite being transient, are of concern in onchocerciasis patients. These data can inform programme managers and guide operational research activities as new approaches for the use of ivermectin are evaluated.

scholarly journals Safety of Cerebrolysin for Neurorecovery After Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Twelve Randomized-Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Strilciuc ◽  
László Vécsei ◽  
Dana Boering ◽  
Aleš Pražnikar ◽  
Oliver Kaut ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
High Dose

We performed a systematic search and meta-analysis of available literature to determine the safety profile of Cerebrolysin in acute ischemic stroke, filling existing safety information gaps and inconsistent results. We searched EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials up to the end of February 2021. Data collection and analysis was conducted using methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. All safety outcomes were analyzed based on risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals. The meta-analysis pooled 2202 patients from twelve randomized clinical trials, registering non-statistically significant (p&gt;0.05) differences between Cerebrolysin and placebo throughout main and subgroup analyses. The lowest rate of Serious Adverse Events (SAE), as compared to placebo, was observed for the highest dose of Cerebrolysin (50 mL), highlighting a moderate reduction (RR = 0.6). We observed a tendency of superiority of Cerebrolysin regarding SAE in high dose treatment courses for moderate-severe ischemic stroke, suggesting some effect of the agent against adverse events. This comprehensive safety meta-analysis confirms the safety profile for patients treated with Cerebrolysin after acute ischemic stroke, as compared to placebo.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document