Evaluation of adverse effects/events of genetically modified food consumption: a systematic review of animal and human studies

Objective A systematic review of animal and human studies was conducted on genetically modified (GM) food consumption to assess its safety in terms of adverse effects/events to inform public concerns and future research. Methods Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1st 1983 till July 11th 2020 for in vivo, animal and human studies on the incidence of adverse effects/events of GM products consumption. Two authors independently identified eligible studies, assessed the study quality, and extracted data on the name of the periodical, author and affiliation, literature type, the theme of the study, publication year, funding, sample size, target population characteristics, type of the intervention/exposure, outcomes and outcome measures, and details of adverse effects/events. We used the Chi-square test to compare the adverse event reporting rates in articles funded by industry funding, government funding or unfunded articles. Results One crossover trial in humans and 203 animal studies from 179 articles met the inclusion criteria. The study quality was all assessed as being unclear or having a high risk of bias. Minor illnesses were reported in the human trial. Among the 204 studies, 59.46% of adverse events (22 of 37) were serious adverse events from 16 animal studies (7.84%). No significant differences were found in the adverse event reporting rates either between industry and government funding (χ2 = 2.286, P = 0.131), industry and non-industry funding (χ2 = 1.761, P = 0.185) or funded and non-funded articles (χ2 = 0.491, P = 0.483). We finally identified 21 GM food-related adverse events involving 7 GM events (NK603 × MON810 maize, GTS 40-3-2 soybean, NK603 maize, MON863 maize, MON810 maize, MON863 × MON810 × NK603 maize and GM Shanyou 63 rice), which had all been on regulatory approval in some countries/regions. Conclusion Serious adverse events of GM consumption include mortality, tumour or cancer, significant low fertility, decreased learning and reaction abilities, and some organ abnormalities. Further clinical trials and long-term cohort studies in human populations, especially on GM food-related adverse events and the corresponding GM events, are still warranted. It suggests the necessity of labelling GM food so that consumers can make their own choice.

Linkage Sharia Banking and Sharia Fintech to Support Halal Industry in Indonesia

The purpose of this study is to describe the development financing of sharia banking, the development of sharia fintech, the development of the halal industry, and the concepts offered in the form of linkage between sharia banking and sharia fintech to support the halal industry in Indonesia. Research uses qualitative method library research. Data sources used are secondary, including Financial Services Authority, Bank Indonesia, LPPOM MUI, and other sources. Data collection technique used library relevant sources theme. Analytical technique used descriptive qualitative, describes development financing sharia banking, sharia fintech, halal industry, and forms linked them for halal industry. Results show growt financing sharia banking December 2020 to August 2021 BUS working capital SMEs grew 4.81 percent. UUS investment SMEs grew 0.86, and investment BPRS grew 5.96 percent. Sharia fintech assets fell -0.42 percent, and players fell 10 percent. Certified halal products 2021 grew 2,531.49 percent. Spending on halal industry food sector is 77.23 total other. Linked between sharia banking and sharia fintech support halal industry, funding business development is provided. Payment instruments can synergize requiring use sharia bank account. Sharia banking and sharia fintech synergize in assisting and marketing products for industry get financing.

Female participation in U.S. oncology clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2020.

85 Background: Females are thought to be underrepresented in clinical trials, which may lead to care disparities. We characterized female enrollment trends in U.S. oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identified features associated with accurate representation. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with descriptive, logistic regression, and cox regression analyses. We downloaded 270,172 studies registered on the Aggregate Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database from October 1, 2008 to March 9, 2020, excluding non-interventional and reproductive organ specific trials. We then applied cancer/oncology specific Medical Subject Heading terms and manually reviewed the remaining 27,521 trials for true oncology content. Prevalence-corrected estimates for female participation were calculated as the percentage of females among trial participants divided by the percentage of females in the disease population per U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data (participation to prevalence ratio [PPR]), with a range between 0.8 and 1.2 reflecting accurate female representation in the trial. Results: Of 26,894 trials meeting eligibility criteria, 9,059 trials were completed in the U.S., 2,499 trials reported completed study status, and only 1,256 trials reported sex. Among 1,256 oncology trials and 229,056 participants, overall female representation was 46.9% (95% CI, 45.4-48.4%). 43% of trials were industry funded, 29% academic, and 28% U.S. government. Females were underrepresented compared to their disease burden in anal canal (PPR 0.21), thyroid (PPR 0.57), stomach (PPR 0.68), kidney (PPR 0.77), and bone (PPR 0.79) cancer trials. They were accurately represented in head and neck (PPR 0.80), lung (PPR 0.84), bladder (PPR 0.85), skin (PPR 0.88), pancreas (PPR 0.88), colon (PPR 0.90), hematologic (PPR 0.91), liver (PPR 1.01), CNS (PPR 1.03), soft tissue (PPR 1.05), and esophagus (PPR 1.05) cancer trials. Accurate representation was significantly associated with industry funding and pancreas cancer trial focus, but not associated with trial type (medical, surgical, radiation, other invasive, other) (Table). Conclusions: Females are underrepresented compared to their disease burden in many solid tumor clinical trials. Stakeholders can look to industry funded and pancreas cancer trials as models of improvement, but must increase female representation in clinical trials to improve cancer care. [Table: see text]

Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing’s Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the risk of bias in osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma (ES) randomized controlled trials (RCT) and to examine the relationships between bias and conflict of interest/industry sponsorship. Methods: An OVID-MEDLINE search was performed (1976–2019). Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, two reviewers independently assessed the prevalence of risk of bias in different RCT design domains. The relationship between conflicts of interest and industry funding with the frequency of bias was examined. Results: 73 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of low-risk bias domains was 47.3%, unclear-risk domains 47.8%, and 4.9% of the domains had a high-risk of bias. Domains with the highest risk of bias were blinding of participants/personnel and outcome assessors, followed by randomization and allocation concealment. Overtime, frequency of unclear-risk of bias domains decreased (χ2 = 5.32, p = 0.02), whilst low and high-risk domains increased (χ2 = 8.13, p = 0.004). Studies with conflicts of interest and industry sponsorships were 4.2 and 3.1 times more likely to have design domains with a high-risk of bias (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sources of potential bias are prevalent in both osteosarcoma and ES RCTs. Studies with financial conflicts of interest and industry sponsors were significantly more likely to have domains with a high-risk of bias. Improvements in reporting and adherence to proper methodology will reduce the risk of bias and improve the validity of the results of RCTs in osteosarcoma and ES.

Clinical trial research on COVID-19 in Germany – a systematic analysis

Background: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented volume of almost 3,000 clinical trials registered worldwide. We aimed to describe the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda in Germany during the first year of the pandemic. Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials assessing interventions to treat or prevent COVID-19 that were registered in 2020 and recruited or planned to recruit participants in Germany. We requested recruitment information from trial investigators as of April 2021. Results: In 2020, 65 trials were completely (n=27) or partially (n=38) conducted in Germany. Most trials investigated interventions to treat COVID-19 (86.2%; 56/65), in hospitalized patients (67.7%; 44/65), with industry funding (53.8%; 35/65). Few trials were completed (21.5%; 14/65). Overall, 187,179 participants were planned to be recruited (20,696 in Germany), with a median number of 106 German participants per trial (IQR 40 to 345). From the planned German participants, 13.4% were recruited (median 15 per trial (IQR 0 to 44). Conclusions: The overall German contribution to the worldwide COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda was modest. Few trials delivered urgently needed evidence. Most trials did not meet recruitment goals. Evaluation and international comparison of the challenges for conducting clinical trials in Germany is needed.