Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Infection Rate after Endoscopic Ultrasound Through-the-Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Cysts: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background: Despite weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (EUS-TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is routinely used in clinical practice. We aim to compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before EUS-TTNB of PCLs and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis. Methods: Out of 236 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred to two high-volume centers between 2016 and 2021, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: 98 subjects who underwent EUS-TTNB under antibiotic prophylaxis and 49 subjects without prophylaxis. Results: There was no difference in terms of baseline parameters between groups. Final diagnosis was serous cystadenoma in 36.7% of patients in the group not treated with prophylaxis and in 37.7% of patients in the control group, whereas IPMN and mucinous cystadenoma were diagnosed in 3 (6.1%) and 16 (32.6%) versus 6 (6.1%) and 32 (32.6%) patients in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.23). Overall, the adverse event rate was 6.1% in the group not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.1% in the control group (p = 0.49). Only a single infectious adverse event occurred in each group (p = 0.48). The diagnostic yields were 89.7% and 90.8% in the two groups (p = 0.7), and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 81.6% in both groups (p = 1.0). Conclusions: Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence the risk of infection, and their routine use should be discouraged.

A Computational Framework for Identifying Age Risks in Drug-Adverse Event Pairs

The identification of associations between drugs and adverse drug events (ADEs) is crucial for drug safety surveillance. An increasing number of studies have revealed that children and seniors are susceptible to ADEs at the population level. However, the comprehensive explorations of age risks in drug-ADE pairs are still limited. The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) provides individual case reports, which can be used for quantifying different age risks. In this study, we developed a statistical computational framework to detect age group of patients who are susceptible to some ADEs after taking specific drugs. We adopted different Chi-squared tests and conducted disproportionality analysis to detect drug-ADE pairs with age differences. We analyzed 4,580,113 drug-ADE pairs in FAERS (2004 to 2018Q3) and identified 2,523 pairs with the highest age risk. Furthermore, we conducted a case study on statin-induced ADE in children and youth. The code and results are available at https://github.com/Zhizhen-Zhao/Age-Risk-Identification

Data Sources for Drug Utilization Research in Brazil—DUR-BRA Study

Background: In Brazil, studies that map electronic healthcare databases in order to assess their suitability for use in pharmacoepidemiologic research are lacking. We aimed to identify, catalogue, and characterize Brazilian data sources for Drug Utilization Research (DUR).Methods: The present study is part of the project entitled, “Publicly Available Data Sources for Drug Utilization Research in Latin American (LatAm) Countries.” A network of Brazilian health experts was assembled to map secondary administrative data from healthcare organizations that might provide information related to medication use. A multi-phase approach including internet search of institutional government websites, traditional bibliographic databases, and experts’ input was used for mapping the data sources. The reviewers searched, screened and selected the data sources independently; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data sources were grouped into the following categories: 1) automated databases; 2) Electronic Medical Records (EMR); 3) national surveys or datasets; 4) adverse event reporting systems; and 5) others. Each data source was characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, type of data (aggregate or individual-level), and years of coverage. We also searched for publications related to each data source.Results: A total of 62 data sources were identified and screened; 38 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion and were fully characterized. We grouped 23 (60%) as automated databases, four (11%) as adverse event reporting systems, four (11%) as EMRs, three (8%) as national surveys or datasets, and four (11%) as other types. Eighteen (47%) were classified as publicly and conveniently accessible online; providing information at national level. Most of them offered more than 5 years of comprehensive data coverage, and presented data at both the individual and aggregated levels. No information about population coverage was found. Drug coding is not uniform; each data source has its own coding system, depending on the purpose of the data. At least one scientific publication was found for each publicly available data source.Conclusions: There are several types of data sources for DUR in Brazil, but a uniform system for drug classification and data quality evaluation does not exist. The extent of population covered by year is unknown. Our comprehensive and structured inventory reveals a need for full characterization of these data sources.

Benign Fasciculation Syndrome and Migraine Aura without Headache: Possible Rare Side Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine? A Case Report and a Potential Hypothesis

The BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) mRNA vaccine is an effective vaccine against COVID-19 infection. Here, we report an adverse event following immunization (AEFI) in a 48-year-old female patient who presented with fasciculations, migraine auras without headaches and in an increased discomfort of previously present palpitations, as well as excitation and insomnia. Her fasciculations were intermittently present until the time this paper was written, starting from the 6th day post-vaccination; they changed localization and frequency, but most commonly they were generalized, affecting almost all muscle groups. The patient also suffered from two incidents of migraine auras with visual kaleidoscope-like phenomena without headaches a few months after the vaccination. These symptoms were considered to be AEFI and no causal relation with the vaccine could be proven.

Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Importance: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data (IPD), including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables further investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ. Objective: To assess efficacy of HCQ/CQ in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, both overall and in prespecified subgroups. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched multiple times in May-June 2020. Principal investigators of US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were invited to collaborate in this IPD meta-analysis. Study Selection: RCTs in which: (1) HCQ/CQ was a treatment arm; (2) patient informed consent and/or individual study IRB approval allowed for data sharing; (3) principal investigators/their institutions signed a data use agreement for the present study; and (4) the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Wherever possible, harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator, then shared via a secure online data sharing platform to create a pooled data set. When this was not possible, individual study data were harmonized and merged manually. Data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): 7-point ordinal scale, measured between day 28 and 35 post-enrollment. Results: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We found no evidence of a difference in ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this IPD meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.