-
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Sep 2023Adverse event monitoring in studies of psychotherapy is crucial to clinical decision-making, particularly for weighing of benefits and harms of treatment approaches. In... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adverse event monitoring in studies of psychotherapy is crucial to clinical decision-making, particularly for weighing of benefits and harms of treatment approaches. In this systematic review, we identified how adverse events are defined, measured, and reported in studies of psychosocial interventions for children with mental disorders.
METHOD
Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2011-January 2023, and Google Scholar from January 2011-February 2023. English language experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the efficacy or effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for childhood mental disorders were included. Information on the definition, assessment, and report of adverse events was extracted using a checklist based on Good Clinical Practice guidelines.
RESULTS
In this review, 117 studies were included. Studies most commonly involved treating anxiety disorders or obsessive-compulsive disorder (32/117; 27%); 44% of the experimental interventions tested (52/117) were cognitive behavioral therapies. Adverse events were monitored in 36 studies (36/117; 31%) with a protocol used in 19 of these studies to guide monitoring (19/36; 53%). Twenty-seven different events were monitored across the studies with hospitalization the most frequently monitored (3/36; 8%). Event severity was fully assessed in 6 studies (17%) and partially assessed in 12 studies (33%). Only 4/36 studies (11%) included assessing events for cause.
CONCLUSIONS
To date, adverse events have been inconsistently defined, measured and reported in psychosocial intervention studies of childhood mental health disorders. Information on adverse events is an essential knowledge component for understanding the potential impacts and risks of therapeutic interventions.
Topics: Humans; Child; Psychotherapy; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Anxiety Disorders
PubMed: 37463769
DOI: 10.1111/camh.12661 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2023Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and adverse event rates with placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated these issues systematically in drug trials for gastroparesis.
METHODS
We searched the medical literature through August 2, 2022 to identify RCTs comparing active drug with placebo in patients with gastroparesis. We assessed placebo response rates according to at least one of the following endpoints: improvement according to a composite outcome, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness, as well as total adverse events, and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures. We pooled placebo response and adverse event rates using a random effects model and expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were eligible. Among 23 trials reporting a composite endpoint of improvement, the pooled placebo response rate was 29.3% (95% CI, 23.7%-35.2%). Pooled placebo response rates were higher in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (34.2% vs 28.1%), among trials that did not use validated symptom questionnaires (31.2% vs 27.4%), and in RCTs of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 32.6% vs ≥9 weeks, 23.2%). Adverse events occurred in 33.8% (95% CI, 26.4%-41.8%) of patients with placebo, in 27 trials, and were less common in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (17.9% vs 43.4%), trials of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 33.7% vs ≥9 weeks, 40.7%), and trials with lower randomization ratios of active drug to placebo (1:1, 26.7% vs 3:1, 50.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis assessed placebo response and adverse event rates in gastroparesis. To accurately assess therapeutic gain, future trials should be a minimum of 8 weeks duration, use validated questionnaires, and distinguish gastroparesis subtypes.
Topics: Humans; Gastroparesis; Vomiting; Nausea
PubMed: 36270614
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Ivermectin; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29608022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012994 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Apr 2021Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are treatments commonly used for lung cancer. The toxicity profile including toxicity incidence,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are treatments commonly used for lung cancer. The toxicity profile including toxicity incidence, severity, and spectrum (involving various specific adverse events) of each EGFR-TKI are of particular clinical interest and importance. Data from phase II and III randomized controlled trials comparing treatments among EGFR-TKIs (osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib) and chemotherapy for lung cancer were synthesized with Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was systemic all-grade and grade ≥3 adverse events. The secondary outcome was specific all-grade adverse events including those of the skin, gastrointestinal tract, lung, etc. 40 trials randomizing 13,352 patients were included. Generally greater toxicity for dacomitinib and afatinib, and safety for icotinib were suggested. Furthermore, we found individual EGFR-TKIs had different toxicity spectrums. These findings provide a compelling safety reference for the individualized use of EGFR-TKIs for patients with lung cancer.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33757838
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103305 -
Arthritis and arthralgia as an adverse event following immunization: A systematic literature review.Vaccine Jan 2019Arthritis and arthralgia are reported as adverse events following immunization with various vaccines.
BACKGROUND
Arthritis and arthralgia are reported as adverse events following immunization with various vaccines.
OBJECTIVE
To better understand current knowledge of arthritis and arthralgia as an adverse event following immunization.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. No restrictions on dates were imposed and all types of vaccine studies with primary data were reviewed.
RESULTS
Of 343 included studies, there were 206 clinical trials, 90 observational studies, and 47 case reports. Influenza was the most commonly studied vaccine (n = 91, 24.4%). Of the 155 (45.2%) studies addressing causality assessment, 84 studies (54.2%) revealed the assessment method. Only seven clinical trials and 12 observational studies reported a measure of association. Four of these studies examined worsening of arthritic conditions in patients with pre-existing disease. Rigorous assessment of causality was not performed in most studies and many observational studies were prone to bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence linking vaccination to incident arthritis or worsening of arthritic conditions is too heterogeneous and incomplete to infer a causal association. Recommendations for future studies include use of consistent, standardized case definitions and causality assessments, better control of confounding and minimization of bias, and inclusion of measures of associations.
Topics: Arthralgia; Arthritis; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Observational Studies as Topic; Vaccination; World Health Organization
PubMed: 30502066
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.067 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research May 2024Neuromodulatory interventions are relatively novel and approaches to studying harms and tolerability have varied. Using a checklist based on guidelines from Good... (Review)
Review
Neuromodulatory interventions are relatively novel and approaches to studying harms and tolerability have varied. Using a checklist based on guidelines from Good Clinical Practice and the Harms Extension of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, we identified how adverse events are measured, assessed, and reported in studies evaluating neuromodulation for the treatment of mental and neurodevelopmental disorders among children and adolescents. A systematic literature review identified 56 experimental and quasi-experimental studies evaluating transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial alternating (tACS) or direct (tDCS) current stimulation, transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), and vagus or trigeminal nerve stimulation (VNS or TNS). For 22 studies (39%), the types of adverse events to be monitored were identified, and for 31 studies (55%), methods for collecting adverse event data were described. Methods for assessing adverse events were less commonly described with 23 studies (41%) having details on assessing event severity, and 11 studies (20%) having details on assessing event causality. Among 31 studies with reported results, headache, skin irritation, and general pain or discomfort were the most reported across studies. Seizure, untoward medical occurrences, and intracranial bleeding, edema, or other intracranial pathology were considered serious events, but these events were not reported as occurring in any results-based papers. Taken together, the findings from this review indicate that most studies of pediatric neuromodulatory interventions did not include descriptions of adverse event monitoring and evaluation. Comprehensive event monitoring and reporting across studies can significantly augment the current knowledge base.
PubMed: 38761518
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.05.035 -
Toxicology Reports 2023Cannabis is the most used illicit drug in the world. Global trends of decriminalization and legalization of cannabis lead to various forms of cannabis use and bring...
BACKGROUND
Cannabis is the most used illicit drug in the world. Global trends of decriminalization and legalization of cannabis lead to various forms of cannabis use and bring great concerns over adverse events, particularly in the cardiovascular (CV) system. To date, the association between cannabis and adverse CV events is still controversial.
PURPOSE
We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the adverse CV events from cannabis use.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic search for publications describing the adverse CV events of cannabis use, including acute myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, was performed via PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Data on effect estimates in individual studies were extracted and combined via random-effects meta-analysis using the DerSimonian and Laird method, a generic inverse-variance strategy.
RESULTS
Twenty studies with a total of 183,410,651 patients were included. The proportion of males was 23.7%. The median age and follow-up time were 42.4 years old (IQR: 37.4, 50.0) and 6.2 years (IQR: 1.7, 27.7), respectively. The prevalence of cannabis use was 1.9%. Cannabis use was not significantly associated with acute MI (pooled odds ratio (OR): 1.29; 95%CI: 0.80, 2.08), stroke (pooled OR 1.35; 95%CI: 0.74, 2.47), and adverse CV events (pooled OR: 1.47; 95%CI: 0.98, 2.20).
CONCLUSION
The risk of adverse CV events including acute MI and stroke does not exhibit a significant increase with cannabis exposure. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the findings due to the heterogeneity of the studies.
PubMed: 37168078
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.04.011 -
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Apr 2015The World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization has declared that maternal immunization is a key priority. Robust adverse event... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization has declared that maternal immunization is a key priority. Robust adverse event following immunization (AEFI) surveillance systems that capture outcomes in pregnant women and their infants are needed to ensure the safety of maternal immunization programs. We sought to identify the active and passive AEFI surveillance systems for pregnant women and their offspring described in the literature.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 1990 to 2014. English-language articles were reviewed if they included pregnant women as the population of interest and described the surveillance method used.
RESULTS
Of 619 articles retrieved from the search, 16 met the criteria for review. These included reports of AEFI surveillance for pregnant women, their offspring, or both. The majority of reports (11/16) came from the USA and described findings on two active and four passive AEFI surveillance systems, only three of which specifically targeted pregnant women. The remaining five articles described one-time AEFI surveillance programs, all in high-income countries.
CONCLUSION
There are no published reports outside of the USA of ongoing AEFI surveillance systems that specifically target pregnant women or their offspring. There may be AEFI surveillance systems that capture events in these populations that have not been reported in the literature. A survey of immunization program managers and national regulatory authorities is needed to determine the current status of AEFI surveillance for pregnant women and their offspring globally.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Female; Humans; Immunization; Infant; Population Surveillance; Pregnancy; PubMed
PubMed: 25683692
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3754 -
Phlebology Aug 2020Medical compression therapy is used for non-invasive treatment of venous and lymphatic diseases. Medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and...
OBJECTIVES
Medical compression therapy is used for non-invasive treatment of venous and lymphatic diseases. Medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and contraindications have been reported, although some contraindications are theoretically based. This consensus statement provides recommendations on medical compression therapy risks and contraindications.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of medical compression therapy publications reporting adverse events up until November 2017 was performed. A consensus panel comprising 15 international experts critically reviewed the publications and formulated the recommendations.
RESULTS
Sixty-two publications reporting medical compression therapy adverse events were identified. The consensus panel issued 21 recommendations on medical compression therapy contraindications and adverse event risk mitigation, in addition to reviewing medical compression therapy use in borderline indications. The most frequently reported non-severe medical compression therapy-associated adverse events included skin irritation, discomfort and pain. Very rare but severe adverse events, including soft tissue and nerve injury, were also identified.
CONCLUSION
This consensus statement summarises published medical compression therapy-associated adverse events and contraindications, and provides guidance on medical compression therapy. Severe medical compression therapy-associated adverse events are very rarely encountered if compression is used correctly and contraindications are considered.
Topics: Compression Bandages; Consensus; Contraindications; Humans; Lymphatic Diseases
PubMed: 32122269
DOI: 10.1177/0268355520909066 -
Peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Jul 2014The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of enteric-coated peppermint oil capsules compared with placebo for the treatment of active irritable bowel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
GOALS
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of enteric-coated peppermint oil capsules compared with placebo for the treatment of active irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
BACKGROUND
IBS is a common disorder that is often encountered in clinical practice. Medical interventions are limited and the focus is on symptom control.
STUDY
Randomized placebo-controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of 2 weeks were considered for inclusion. Cross-over studies that provided outcome data before the first cross-over were included. A literature search upto February 2013 identified all applicable randomized-controlled trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes included global improvement of IBS symptoms, improvement in abdominal pain, and adverse events. Outcomes were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach.
RESULTS
Nine studies that evaluated 726 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most of the factors assessed. Peppermint oil was found to be significantly superior to placebo for global improvement of IBS symptoms (5 studies, 392 patients, relative risk 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.81) and improvement in abdominal pain (5 studies, 357 patients, relative risk 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-2.79). Although peppermint oil patients were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event, such events were mild and transient in nature. The most commonly reported adverse event was heartburn.
CONCLUSIONS
Peppermint oil is a safe and effective short-term treatment for IBS. Future studies should assess the long-term efficacy and safety of peppermint oil and its efficacy relative to other IBS treatments including antidepressants and antispasmodic drugs.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Capsules; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Mentha piperita; Parasympatholytics; Plant Oils; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24100754
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182a88357