-
Vaccines Nov 2023Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs.... (Review)
Review
Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.
PubMed: 38140168
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11121763 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2023Different materials have been used for capping the pulp after exposure during caries removal in permanent teeth. The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Different materials have been used for capping the pulp after exposure during caries removal in permanent teeth. The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze all pertinent evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Trials comparing two or more capping agents used for direct pulp capping (DPC) or pulpotomy were considered eligible. An electronic search of four databases and two clinical trial registries was carried out up to February 28, 2021 using a search strategy properly adapted to the PICO framework. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment of primary studies were performed in duplicate and independently. The primary outcome was clinical and radiological success; secondary outcomes included continued root formation, tooth discoloration, and dentin bridge formation.
RESULTS
21 RCTs were included in the study. The RoB assessment indicated a moderate risk among the studies. Due to significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity among the studies, performing network meta-analysis (NMA) was not possible. An ad hoc subgroup analysis revealed strong evidence of a higher success of DPC with Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) compared to calcium hydroxide (CH) (odds ratio [OR] = 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66-5.79). MTA performed better than CH in pulp capping (both DPC and pulpotomy) of mature compared to immature teeth (OR = 3.34, 95% CI: 1.81-6.17). The GRADE assessment revealed moderate strength of evidence for DPC and mature teeth, and low to very low strength of evidence for the remaining subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity among the trials did not allow NMA. The ad hoc subgroup analysis indicated that the clinical and radiographic success of MTA was higher than that of CH but only in mature teeth and DPC cases where the strength of evidence was moderate. PROSPERO Registration: number CRD42020127239.
Topics: Humans; Dental Pulp Capping; Pulpotomy; Calcium Compounds; Aluminum Compounds; Oxides; Silicates; Drug Combinations; Calcium Hydroxide; Dental Caries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37710421
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.767