scholarly journals Nonspecific Adverse Events in Knee Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e111776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Hyung Koog ◽  
Jin Su Lee ◽  
Hyungsun Wi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis

Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy on ALK-positive NSCLC: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingxia Wang ◽  
Guanqi Wang ◽  
Haiyan Ma ◽  
Baoen Shan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Alk Positive

Introduction: Crizotinib was approved to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011.We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and retrospective studies to compare the efficacy and safety of crizotinib with chemotherapy. </P><P> Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to Dec. 2016. Clinical trials and retrospective studies regarding crizotinib and crizotinib versus chemotherapy in treatment of NSCLC were eligible. The primary outcomes were the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Nine studies (five clinical trials and four retrospective studies) including 729 patients met the inclusion criteria. Crizotinib treatment revealed 1-year OS of 77.1% and PFS of 9.17 months. And crizotinib had a better performance than chemotherapy in ORR (OR: 4.97, 95%CI: 3.16 to 7.83, P<0.00001, I2=35%). DCR revealed superiority with crizotinib than chemotherapy (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 2.33 to 5.01, P<0.00001, I2=0%). PR (partial response) were significant superior to that of chemotherapy through direct systematic review. No statistically significant difference in CR (complete response) was found between crizotinib-treated group and chemotherapy-treated group. Regarding SD (stable disease), chemotherapy-treated group had a better performance than crizotinib-treated group. Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, nausea, and hematologic toxicity. This systematic review revealed improved objective response rate and increased disease control rate in crizotinib group comparing with chemotherapy group. Crizotinib treatment would be a favorable treatment option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. ALK inhibitors may have future potential applications in other cancers driven by ALK or c-MET gene mutations.

scholarly journals Recombinant Human Adenovirus-p53 Therapy for the Treatment of Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Jagadish Hosmani ◽  
Shazia Mushtaq ◽  
Shahabe Saquib Abullais ◽  
Hussain Mohammed Almubarak ◽  
Khalil Assiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Leukoplakia ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
The World

Background and Objectives: Oral cancer is the 6th most common cancer in the world and oral leukoplakia is an oral potentially malignant disorder that could develop into oral cancer. This systematic review focusses on randomized clinical trials for recombinant adenovirus p-53 (rAD-p53) therapy for the treatment of oral leukoplakia and cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched for research articles on various databases such as Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infra-structure), Springerlink, cochrane and Web of sciences from 2003 to 2020. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used for the search. Inclusion criteria included original research, randomized clinical trials and articles only in English language. Exclusion criteria were any articles that were not research articles, not randomized trials, non-human studies, etc. The articles were further graded on the Jadad scale. Results: 578 articles were assessed from various databases; only 3 articles were found to be appropriate for this review. Thus, meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity and lack of data. In the three studies, whether rAD-p53 was used as a standalone therapy or with other therapies, there was a beneficial effect of the therapy. Furthermore, there were no serious adverse events and the only adverse events reported were fever, pain at the local injection site, flu-like symptoms and lowered WBC count. Conclusions: Thus, we can conclude that this therapy has a potential for beneficial therapeutic effects and further clinical trials with more patients need to be performed to get better understanding of the effect of rAD-p53 therapy, which probably will pave the way to its approval in other parts of the world.

scholarly journals AB0864 DO CORTICOSTEROIDS AND HYALURONIC ACID INJECTIONS CAUSE INFECTIONS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON ADVERSE EFFECTS AND INFECTION RATES OF INTRA-ARTICULAR CORTICOSTEROID AND HYALURONIC ACID INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1739.2-1739
Author(s):  
C. Hatzantonis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background:Knee osteoarthritis has been a leading cause of chronic pain and disability in our increasingly aging population. Conservative management options of physiotherapy and oral analgesics offer some relief, but delivery of intra-articular injections such as corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid has increasingly become the mainstay of pain management of knee osteoarthritis. In a clinical setting, intra-articular injections offer a means to delay a total knee replacement. Despite the abundance of literature on corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, there is no known percentage of infection rates or adverse effects that clinicians may use to inform patients prior to obtaining consent for the injection.Objectives:To determine a rate of adverse events and infection rates in patients undergoing intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid.Methods:A systematic review of current literature including studies involving patients ranging from 45 patients (Carmona L, 2018) to Cochrane reviews of 1767 patients (Campbell Kirk, 2015). From these studies, the number of patients, adverse reactions (i.e. pain, erythema) and serious adverse reactions (infections) were calculated.Results:Within our study, there was a large variation of numbers of adverse effects of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids amongst studies, with percentages as variable as 0-9.3%. Corticosteroids demonstrated 11-26% reduction of adverse events compared to hyaluronic acid. However, confidence intervals were found to not be statistically significant.Conclusion:Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, although deemed clinically effective, continue to demonstrate variable rates of adverse effects and infection amongst patients with progressive knee osteoarthritis.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

675 FUNDOPLICATION VERSUS ORAL PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Intake

Abstract   Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a widely studied and highly prevalent condition. However, few is reported about the exact efficacy and safety of fundoplication (FPT) compared to oral intake proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aims to compare PPI and FPT in relation to the efficacy, as well as the adverse events associated with these therapies. Methods This systematic review was guided by PRISMA statement. Search carried out in June 2020 was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were (I) patients with GERD; (II) Randomized clinical trials, comparing oral intake PPI with FPT; (III) relevant outcomes for this review. The exclusion criteria were (I) reviews, case reports, editorials and letters (II) transoral or endoscopic FPT (III) studies with no full text. No restrictions were set for language or period. Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed with GRADE Pro and with Review Manager Version 5.4 bias assessment tool. Results Ten RCT were included. Meta-analysis showed that heartburn (RD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.29, −0.09) was less frequently reported by patients that underwent FPT. Furthermore, patients undergoing surgery had greater pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter than those who used PPI (MD = 7.81; 95% CI 4.79, 10.83). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of time with pH less than 4 in 24 hours, sustained remission and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Finally, FPT did not increase significantly the risk for adverse events such as postoperative dysphagia and impaired belching. Conclusion FPT is a more effective therapy than PPI treatment for GERD, without significantly increasing the risk for adverse events. However, before indicating a possible surgical approach, it is extremely important to correctly assess and select the patients who would benefit from FPT, such as those with severe erosive esophagitis, severe respiratory symptoms, low adherence to continuous drug treatment and patients with non-acid reflux, to ensure better results.

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

Vaccines ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document