scholarly journals New onset rheumatoid arthritis with refractory hyper-eosinophilia associated with inactivated COVID-19 vaccine

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit Singh ◽  
Upinder Kaur ◽  
Ankur Singh ◽  
Sankha Shubhra Chakrabarti
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
China And India ◽  
Rheumatoid Nodules ◽  
First Case ◽  
Inactivated Vaccines ◽  
New Onset

Abstract COVID-19 vaccines are considered one of the primary strategies for countering the pandemic. While mRNA based and viral vector-based vaccines have been predominantly used, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being manufactured in countries such as China and India. Post approval, rare but serious adverse events such as myocarditis and stroke have been observed with mRNA based and viral vectored COVID-19 vaccines. Inactivated vaccines in general have shown better tolerability in clinical trials. Here we report the first case of new-onset seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rheumatoid nodules and refractory reactive eosinophilia within two weeks of receiving an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (COVAXIN).

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Different Vaccines at Phase 3

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 989
Author(s):  
Yu-Jing Fan ◽  
Kwok-Hung Chan ◽  
Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inactivated Vaccine ◽  
Vaccine Platform ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Inactivated Vaccines

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine platform and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection severity. Articles published between 24 January 2020 and 30 May 2021 were retrieved via a PubMed and EMBASE search. A total of 12 reports on phase-3 clinical trials and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccines were included in the review. In terms of vaccine safety, mRNA vaccines showed more relevance to serious adverse events than viral vector and inactivated vaccines, but no solid evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccines directly caused serious adverse events. Serious metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune-system, and renal disorders were more common among inactivated vaccine recipients, and serious gastrointestinal complications and infections were more common among viral vector and inactivated vaccine recipients. The occurrence of serious vessel disorders was more frequent in mRNA vaccines. In terms of efficacy, two mRNA vaccine doses conferred a lesser risk of SARS-COV-2 infection (odds ratio: 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.02–0.13) than did vaccination with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. All vaccines protected more against symptomatic than asymptomatic cases (risk ratio, 0.11 vs. 0.34), but reduced the risk of severe SARS-COV-2 infection. The COVID-19 vaccines assessed in this study are sufficiently safe and effective. The results indicate that two mRNA vaccine doses prevent SARS-COV-2 infection most effectively, but further research is needed due to the high degree of heterogeneity among studies in this sample. Interventions should be implemented continuously to reduce the risks of infection after one vaccine dose and asymptomatic infection.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN KWASI KORANG ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19.Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; ‘active placebo’; no intervention; standard care; an ‘active’ intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, our eight-step procedure to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) will assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and analyzed separately. Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals AB1335-HPR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS’ PERSPECTIVE ON THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF LOW-DOSE GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS – AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF 444 HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1955.1-1956
Author(s):  
T. Santiago ◽  
M. Voshaar ◽  
M. De Wit ◽  
P. Carvalho ◽  
M. Boers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Low Doses ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Patient Organizations

Background:The Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (GLORIA) is an international investigator-initiated pragmatic randomized trial designed to study the effects of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in elderly patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).The research team is also committed to promote a better understanding of the risks and benefits of these drugs among health professionals and patients. In order to achieve these goals, it is important to assess the current ideas and concerns of patients regarding GCs.Objectives:To evaluate the current patient perspective on the efficacy and risks of GCs in RA patients who are or have been treated with GCs.Methods:Patients with RA completed an online survey (with 5 closed questions regarding efficacy and safety) presented in their native language. RA patients were recruited through a variety of patient organizations representing three continents. Patients were invited to participate through national patient organizations. In the USA, patients were also invited to participate through MediGuard.org. Participants were asked for their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale.Results:1344 RA patients with exposure to GCs, from Brazil, USA, UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany and 24 other countries** participated: 89% female, mean age (SD) 52 (14) years and mean disease duration 13 (11) years. The majority of participants (84%) had ≥10 years of education. The duration of GCs exposure was 1.6 (4.2) years. The majority of participants had read articles or pamphlets on the benefits or harms of GC therapy.Regarding GCs efficacy (table 1), high levels of endorsement were found: about 2/3 of patients considered that GCs as very useful in their case, more than half considered that GCs were effective even at low doses, and agreed that GC improved RA symptoms within days.Regarding safety (table 1), 1/3 of the participants reported having suffered some form of serious adverse events (AEs) due to GCs, and 9% perceived this as “life-threatening. Adverse events had a serious impact on quality of life, according to about 1/3 of the respondents.Conclusion:Patients with RA exposed to GC report a strong conviction that GCs are very useful and effective for the treatment of their RA, even at low doses. This is accompanied by an important prevalence of serious AEs. Understanding the patient perspective can improve shared decision-making between patient and rheumatologist.Funding statement:This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634886.Disclosure of Interests:Tânia Santiago: None declared, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Pedro Carvalho: None declared, Maarten Boers: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Frank Buttgereit Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Generic Assays, GSK, Hexal, Horizon, Lilly, medac, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi., José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis

scholarly journals Adverse events of special interest in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis with 37 066 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001595
Author(s):  
Gerd R Burmester ◽  
Peter Nash ◽  
Bruce E Sands ◽  
Kim Papp ◽  
Lori Stockert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Study Data ◽  
System Organ Class

ObjectivesTo analyse adverse events (AEs) of special interest across tofacitinib clinical programmes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ulcerative colitis (UC) and psoriasis (PsO), and to determine whether the incidence rates (IRs; unique patients with events per 100 patient-years) of these events are consistent across diseases.MethodsThe analysis included data from patients exposed to ≥1 dose of tofacitinib in phase 1, 2, 3 or 3b/4 clinical trials and long-term extension (LTE) studies (38 trials) in RA (23 trials), PsA (3 trials), UC (5 trials) and PsO (7 trials). All studies were completed by or before July 2019, except for one ongoing UC LTE study (data cut-off May 2019). IRs were obtained for AEs of special interest.Results13 567 patients were included in the analysis (RA: n=7964; PsA: n=783; UC: n=1157; PsO: n=3663), representing 37 066 patient-years of exposure. Maximum duration of exposure was 10.5 years (RA). AEs within the ‘infections and infestations’ System Organ Class were the most common in all diseases. Among AEs of special interest, IRs were highest for herpes zoster (non-serious and serious; 3.6, 1.8, 3.5 and 2.4 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively) and serious infections (2.5, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.3 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively). Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted mortality ratios (weighted for country) were ≤0.2 across cohorts.ConclusionsThe tofacitinib safety profile in this analysis was generally consistent across diseases and with longer term follow-up compared with previous analyses.

scholarly journals POS0647 EFFICACY, SAFETY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF IGURATIMOD-BASED THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF UA, ERA AND RA PATIENTS FOR 24 WEEKS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 561.2-562
Author(s):  
X. Liu ◽  
Z. Sun ◽  
W. Guo ◽  
F. Wang ◽  
L. Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Background:Experts emphasize early diagnosis and treatment in RA, but the widely used diagnostic criterias fail to meet the accurate judgment of early rheumatoid arthritis. In 2012, Professor Zhanguo Li took the lead in establishing ERA “Chinese standard”, and its sensitivity and accuracy have been recognized by peers. However, the optimal first-line treatment of patients (pts) with undifferentiated arthritis (UA), early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are yet to be established.Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Iguratimod-based (IGU-based) Strategy in the above three types of pts, and to explore the characteristics of the effects of IGU monotherapy and combined treatment.Methods:This prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01548001) was conducted in China. In this phase 4 study pts with RA (ACR 1987 criteria[1]), ERA (not match ACR 1987 criteria[1] but match ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria[2] or 2014 ERA criteria[3]), UA (not match classification criteria for ERA and RA but imaging suggests synovitis) were recruited. We applied different treatments according to the patient’s disease activity at baseline, including IGU monotherapy and combination therapies with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisone. Specifically, pts with LDA and fewer poor prognostic factors were entered the IGU monotherapy group (25 mg bid), and pts with high disease activity were assigned to combination groups. A Chi-square test was applied for comparison. The primary outcomes were the proportion of pts in remission (REM)or low disease activity (LDA) that is DAS28-ESR<2.6 or 3.2 at 24 weeks, as well as the proportion of pts, achieved ACR20, Boolean remission, and good or moderate EULAR response (G+M).Results:A total of 313 pts (26 pts with UA, 59 pts with ERA, and 228 pts with RA) were included in this study. Of these, 227/313 (72.5%) pts completed the 24-week follow-up. The results showed that 115/227 (50.7%), 174/227 (76.7%), 77/227 (33.9%), 179/227 (78.9%) pts achieved DAS28-ESR defined REM and LDA, ACR20, Boolean remission, G+M response, respectively. All parameters continued to decrease in all pts after treatment (Fig 1).Compared with baseline, the three highest decline indexes of disease activity at week 24 were SW28, CDAI, and T28, with an average decline rate of 73.8%, 61.4%, 58.7%, respectively. Results were similar in three cohorts.We performed a stratified analysis of which IGU treatment should be used in different cohorts. The study found that the proportion of pts with UA and ERA who used IGU monotherapy were significantly higher than those in the RA cohort. While the proportion of triple and quadruple combined use of IGU in RA pts was significantly higher than that of ERA and UA at baseline and whole-course (Fig 2).A total of 81/313 (25.8%) pts in this study had adverse events (AE) with no serious adverse events. The main adverse events were infection(25/313, 7.99%), gastrointestinal disorders(13/313, 4.15%), liver dysfunction(12/313, 3.83%) which were lower than 259/2666 (9.71%) in the previous Japanese phase IV study[4].The most common reasons of lost follow-up were: 1) discontinued after remission 25/86 (29.1%); 2) lost 22/86 (25.6%); 3) drug ineffective 19/86 (22.1%).Conclusion:Both IGU-based monotherapy and combined therapies are tolerant and effective for treating UA, ERA, and RA, while the decline in joint symptoms was most significant. Overall, IGU combination treatments were most used in RA pts, while monotherapy was predominant in ERA and UA pts.References:[1]Levin RW, et al. Scand J Rheumatol 1996, 25(5):277-281.[2]Kay J, et al. Rheumatology 2012, 51(Suppl 6):vi5-9.[3]Zhao J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014, 32(5):667-673.[4]Mimori T, et al. Mod Rheumatol 2019, 29(2):314-323.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Adverse events and blinding in two randomized trials of hyperbaric oxygen for persistent post-concussive symptoms

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-340
Author(s):  
Susan Churchill ◽  
◽  
Kayla Deru ◽  
Lindell K. Weaver ◽  
Steffanie H. Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hyperbaric Oxygen ◽  
Gas Flow ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Symptom Improvement ◽  
Sham Control ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
To Receive

Safety monitoring and successful blinding are important features of randomized, blinded clinical trials. We report chamber- and protocol-related adverse events (AEs) for participants enrolled in two randomized, double-blind clinical trials of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for persistent post-concussive symptoms clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT01306968, HOPPS, and NCT01611194, BIMA), as well as the success of maintaining the blind with a low-pressure sham control arm. In both studies, participants were randomized to receive HBO2 (1.5 atmospheres absolute, >99% oxygen) or sham chamber sessions (1.2 atmospheres absolute, room air). In 143 participants undergoing 4,245 chamber sessions, chamber-related adverse events were rare (1.1% in the HOPPS study, 2.2% in the BIMA study). Minor, non-limiting barotrauma was the most frequently reported. Rarely, some participants experienced headache with chamber sessions. No serious adverse events were associated with chamber sessions. An allocation questionnaire completed after intervention revealed that the sham control arm adequately protected the blind in both trials. Participants based allocation assumptions on symptom improvement or lack of symptom improvement and could not discern intervention arm by pressure, smell, taste, or gas flow.

scholarly journals 32 Quantifying the Prevalence of Frailty in Drug Trials and the Relationship with Serious Adverse Events

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i7-i11
Author(s):  
P Hanlon ◽  
E Butterly ◽  
J Lewsey ◽  
S Siebert ◽  
F S Mair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Introduction Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42–65 years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI &gt;0.24 were considered “frail”. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex and disease severity. In negative binomial regression we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI, and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. Results All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7–21% in T2DM trials, 33–73% in RA trials, and 15–22% in COPD trials. Increased disease severity and female sex were associated with higher FI in all trials. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21–1.75), 1.45 (1.13–1.87) and 1.99 (1.43–2.76) for T2DM, RA and COPD, respectively. Conclusion Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications. Trial data may be harnessed to better understand chronic disease management in people living with frailty.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document