scholarly journals Safety of Influenza A H1N1pdm09 Vaccines: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lene Kristine Juvet ◽  
Anna Hayman Robertson ◽  
Ida Laake ◽  
Siri Mjaaland ◽  
Lill Trogstad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Demyelinating Diseases ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Influenza A H1n1

BackgroundIn 2009, a new influenza A H1N1 virus emerged causing a global pandemic. A range of monovalent influenza A H1N1pdm09 vaccines with or without adjuvants were developed. After the mass vaccination campaigns safety concerns related to H1N1pdm09 vaccines were reported. More than a decade later, reported AEFIs are still under scrutiny. We performed a systematic review aiming to synthesize the evidence on the safety of the H1N1pdm09 vaccines on reported outcomes from existing systematic reviews.MethodsFour electronic databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Epistimonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for articles on H1N1pdm09 vaccination published from 2009 to January 2021. Systematic reviews assessing short- or long-term adverse events after H1N1pdm09 vaccination were considered for inclusion. Data was extracted from all selected reviews. Outcomes were grouped and results from each included review were presented narratively and in tables.Results16 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Reported outcomes were short-term events (3 reviews), fetal/pregnancy outcomes (8 reviews), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) (4 reviews), narcolepsy (2 reviews) demyelinating diseases (1 review based on one study only) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (1 review). Short-term serious adverse events were rare, 3 cases amongst 16725 subjects in 18 randomized controlled trials (0.018%). No deaths were reported. The risks of local events were generally higher for adjuvanted vaccines as compared to unadjuvanted vaccines. Maternal H1N1pdm09 vaccination in any trimester was not associated with an increase in preterm birth, small for gestational age, congenital malformations or fetal death. For GBS, results were conflicting. The main systematic review on narcolepsy found a 5-14-fold increased risk in children, and a 2-7- fold increased risk in adults after vaccination with Pandemrix. The attributable risk of narcolepsy one year after vaccination was 1 case per 18 400 vaccine doses in children/adolescents, and 1 case per 181 000 vaccine doses in adults.ConclusionAdjuvanted vaccines had more local but not serious adverse events compared to unadjuvanted vaccines. Vaccination with Pandemrix was strongly associated with narcolepsy, particularly in children. No increased risks of pregnancy outcomes were seen after pandemic vaccination. The findings on GBS were inconclusive.

scholarly journals Second-generation antipsychotic drugs and short-term somatic serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 753-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Schneider-Thoma ◽  
Orestis Efthimiou ◽  
Irene Bighelli ◽  
Carola Dörries ◽  
Maximilian Huhn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Second Generation Antipsychotic

scholarly journals Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain: May 2021 Update

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian S. McDonagh ◽  
Jesse Wagner ◽  
Azrah Y. Ahmed ◽  
Benjamin Morasco ◽  
Devan Kansagara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Progress Report ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Short Term Treatment ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Whole Plant ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Overview This is the third quarterly progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain. The first progress report was published in January 2021 and the second in March 2021. The draft systematic review was available for public comment from May 19 through June 15, 2021, on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care website. The systematic review synthesizes evidence on the benefits and harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs), such as cannabinoids and kratom, used to treat chronic pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse, misuse, dependence, and addiction. The purpose of this progress report is to describe the cumulative literature identified thus far. This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified, culminating in an annual systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated evidence. Main Points In patients with chronic (mainly neuropathic) pain with short-term treatment (4 weeks to <6 months): • Studies of cannabis-related products were grouped based on their tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) ratio using the following categories: high THC to CBD, comparable THC to CBD, and low THC to CBD. • Comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray is probably associated with small improvements in pain severity and may be associated with small improvements in function. There was no effect in pain interference or serious adverse events. There may be a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation, and a moderate increased risk of nausea. • Synthetic THC (high THC to CBD) may be associated with moderate improvement in pain severity and increased risk of sedation, and large increased risk of nausea. Synthetic THC is probably associated with a large increased risk of dizziness. • Extracted whole-plant high THC to CBD ratio products may be associated with large increases in risk of withdrawal due to adverse events and dizziness. • Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, low THC to CBD ratio products (topical CBD), other cannabinoids (cannabidivarin), and comparisons with other active interventions was insufficient to draw conclusions. • Other key adverse event outcomes (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, cognitive deficits) and outcomes on the impact on opioid use were not reported. • No evidence on other plant-based compounds, such as kratom, met criteria for this review.

scholarly journals Enough with the madness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-220
Author(s):  
André Santos ◽  
◽  
Érica Gonçalves ◽  
Ananda Oliveira ◽  
Douglas Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
P Value ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: Because of preliminary results from in vitro studies, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been proposed as possible treatments for COVID-19, but the clinical evidence is discordant. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. An electronic search was conducted in four databases for randomized controlled trials that compared HCQ or CQ with standard-of-care. A complementary search was performed. A quantitative synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method adjusting for a random-effects model. Results: In total, 16 studies were included. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between intervention and control groups in terms of mortality at the most extended follow-up (RR = 1.09, CI95% = 0.99-1.19, p-value = 0.08), patients with negative PCR results (RR = 0.99, CI95% = 0.89-1.10, p-value = 0.86), or serious adverse events (RR = 2.21, CI95% = 0.89-5.47, p-value = 0.09). HCQ was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (RR = 2.28, CI95% = 1.36-2.83, p-value < 0.01). The quality of evidence varied from very low to high. Conclusion: There is no evidence that HCQ reduces the risk of death or improves cure rates in patients with COVID-19, but it might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals 416 - Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotics in Alzheimer's Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Liliana P. Ferreira ◽  
Núria Santos ◽  
Nuno Fernandes ◽  
Carla Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Antipsychotic Treatment ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Increased Risk

Objectives: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and it is associated with increased mortality. The use of antipsychotics is common among the elderly, especially in those with dementia. Evidence suggests an increased risk of mortality associated with antipsychotic use. Despite the short-term benefit of antipsychotic treatment to reduce the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, it increases the risk of mortality in patients with AD. Our aim is to discuss the findings from the literature about risk of mortality associated with the use of antipsychotics in AD.Methods: We searched Internet databases indexed at MEDLINE using following MeSH terms: "Antipsychotic Agents" AND "Alzheimer Disease" OR "Dementia" AND "Mortality" and selected articles published in the last 5 years.Results: Antipsychotics are widely used in the pharmacological treatment of agitation and aggression in elderly patients with AD, but their benefit is limited. Serious adverse events associated with antipsychotics include increased risk of death. The risk of mortality is associated with both typical and atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic polypharmacy is associated with a higher mortality risk than monotherapy and should be avoided. The mortality risk increases after the first few days of treatment, gradually reducing but continues to increase after two years of treatment. Haloperidol is associated with a higher mortality risk and quetiapine with a lower risk than risperidone.Conclusions: If the use of antipsychotics is considered necessary, the lowest effective dose should be chosen and the duration should be limited because the mortality risk remains high with long-term use. The risk / benefit should be considered when choosing the antipsychotic. Further studies on the efficacy and risk of adverse events with antipsychotics are needed for a better choice of treatment and adequate monitoring with risk reduction.

EP.WE.14Prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahab Hajibandeh ◽  
Shahin Hajibandeh
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short Term ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Major Adverse Events

Abstract Aims to evaluate prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients undergoing carotid artery revascularisation. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in compliance with PRISMA standards to evaluate prognostic significance of MetS in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting. Short-term (&lt;30 days) postoperative outcomes (all-cause mortality, stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction, major adverse events) and long-term outcomes (restenosis, all-cause mortality, stroke or TIA, myocardial infarction, major adverse events) were considered as outcomes of interest. Random effects modelling was applied for the analyses. Results Analysis of 3721 patients from five cohort studies showed no difference between the MetS and no MetS groups in terms of the following short-term outcomes: all-cause mortality (OR: 1.67,P=0.32), stroke or TIA (OR: 2.44,P=0.06), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.01,P=0.96), major adverse events (OR: 1.23, P = 0.66). In terms of long-term outcomes, MetS was associated with higher risk of restenosis (OR: 1.75,P=0.02), myocardial infarction (OR: 2.12,P=0.04), and major adverse events (OR: 1.30, P = 0.009) but there was no difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality (OR: 1.11, P = 0.25), and stroke or TIA (OR: 1.24, P = 0.33). The quality and certainty of the available evidence were judged to be moderate. Conclusions The best available evidence suggest that although MetS may not affect the short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing carotid revascularisation, it may result in higher risks of restenosis, myocardial infarction and major adverse events in the long-term. Evidence from large prospective cohort studies are required for more robust conclusions.

scholarly journals Prevalence of diabetes in the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Badawi ◽  
Sueng Gwan Ryoo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Influenza A ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Epidemiologic Evidence ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Infection ◽  
Influenza A H1n1 ◽  
Prevalence Of Obesity

Over the past two decades a number of severe acute respiratory infection outbreaks such as the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have emerged and presented a considerable global public health threat. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that diabetic subjects are more susceptible to these conditions. However, the prevalence of diabetes in H1N1 and MERS-CoV has not been systematically described. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published reports documenting the prevalence of diabetes in H1N1 and MERS-CoV and compare its frequency in the two viral conditions. Meta-analysis for the proportions of subjects with diabetes was carried out in 29 studies for H1N1 (n=92,948) and 9 for MERS-CoV (n=308). Average age of H1N1 patients (36.2±6.0 years) was significantly younger than that of subjects with MERS-CoV (54.3±7.4 years, P&lt;0.05). Compared to MERS-CoV patients, subjects with H1N1 exhibited 3-fold lower frequency of cardiovascular diseases and 2- and 4-fold higher prevalence of obesity and immunosuppression, respectively. The overall prevalence of diabetes in H1N1 was 14.6% (95% CI: 12.3- 17.0%; P&lt;0.001), a 3.6-fold lower than in MERS-CoV (54.4%; 95% CI: 29.4-79.5; P&lt;0.001). The prevalence of diabetes among H1N1 cases from Asia and North America was ~two-fold higher than those from South America and Europe. The prevalence of diabetes in MERS-CoV cases is higher than in H1N1. Regional comparisons suggest that an etiologic role of diabetes in MERS-CoV may exist distinctive from that in H1N1.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document