-
Vaccines Apr 2022We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the risk of serious adverse events in the elderly after yellow fever vaccination compared to the... (Review)
Review
We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the risk of serious adverse events in the elderly after yellow fever vaccination compared to the non-elderly population. We searched multiple databases and grey literature, and we selected research without language and publication date restrictions. Studies were analyzed in a descriptive way and meta-analyzed and expressed in terms of prevalence ratio and risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval, depending on the degree of heterogeneity found. A total of 18 studies were included and 11 were meta-analyzed. The results obtained through the meta-analysis showed a risk of serious adverse events after yellow fever vaccination three times higher for the elderly when compared to the non-elderly population and five times higher for persons > 70 years. In relation to adverse event types, viscerotropic disease associated with the yellow fever vaccine had a risk that was six times higher when compared to the population < 60 years. The evidence found supports that the vaccine indication in individuals > 60 years of age should be based on a careful analysis of individual benefit-risk assessments. The results found suggest a higher risk of events for individuals > 70 years, especially for viscerotropic and neurotropic disease associated with YFV contraindicating the use of the YFV in this age group.
PubMed: 35632466
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10050711 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25723351
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub5 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Sep 2015There are limited data about the quality of immune-related adverse event (irAE) reporting in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trial publications. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are limited data about the quality of immune-related adverse event (irAE) reporting in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trial publications.
METHODS
A systematic search of citations from Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases identified prospective clinical trials involving ICIs in advanced solid tumors from 2003 to 2013. A 21-point quality score (QS) was adapted from the CONSORT harms extension statement. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with quality reporting.
RESULTS
After a review of 2628 articles, 50 trial reports were included, with ICIs as either monotherapy (54%) or part of a combination regimen (46%). The mean QS was 11.21 points (range 3.50-17.50 points). The median grade 3/4 AE rate reported was 21% (range 0%-66%) and 29/50 (58%) trials concluded that irAEs were tolerable. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that year of publication (within last 5 years, P = 0.01) and journal impact factor >15 (P = 0.004) were associated with higher QS. Complete reporting of specific characteristics of irAEs including onset, management and reversibility were reported by 14%, 8% and 6% of studies, respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events was higher for inhibitors against CTLA-4 compared with other immune checkpoints (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The reporting of irAEs is suboptimal. A standardized reporting method of irAEs that accounts for tolerability, management and reversibility is needed and would enable a more precise evaluation of the therapeutic risk benefit ratio of ICIs.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunotherapy; Neoplasms; Quality Control
PubMed: 25888611
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv182 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015A large proportion of people with advanced cancer will experience moderate to severe pain. Tapentadol is a novel, centrally acting analgesic medicine acting at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A large proportion of people with advanced cancer will experience moderate to severe pain. Tapentadol is a novel, centrally acting analgesic medicine acting at the μ-opioid receptor and inhibiting noradrenaline reuptake. The efficacy of tapentadol is stated to be comparable to morphine and oxycodone.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of tapentadol for the relief of cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to July 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and review articles, and two clinical trial registries. Searches started from 2005 because this covered the period during which clinical trials were conducted. We contacted the manufacturer of tapentadol in the UK to find additional trials not identified by electronic searches. We did not restrict searches by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tapentadol compared with placebo or active controls in adults with moderate to severe cancer pain. Pain had to be measured using a validated assessment tool, and studies had to include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. We extracted available data on study design, participant details, interventions, and outcomes, including analgesic outcome measures, withdrawals, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with 1029 participants. All the studies used a parallel-group design, and included an initial titration phase to determine the maximum effective and tolerated dose, followed by a maintenance phase. Tapentadol medication was taken twice daily and doses ranged from 50 to 500 mg per day. Rescue medication (morphine or oxycodone immediate-release) was available to participants in all studies.Overall, 440 participants were randomised in classically designed RCTs, and 589 participants were enrolled in enriched-enrolment, randomised-withdrawal (EERW) trials. A total of 476 participants were randomised to titration with tapentadol and 338 participants took tapentadol throughout the maintenance phase of their trial.All studies used numerical rating scores, Patient Global Impression of Change scores, and use of rescue medication as measures of efficacy, and all reported on adverse events and withdrawals.All studies enrolled fewer than 200 participants per treatment arm and were therefore at risk of overestimating efficacy. One study was terminated early due to problems with supply of rescue medication, with fewer than 20 participants enrolled per treatment arm in the maintenance phase of the trial. We judged another study at high risk of bias due to an open-label design.There were insufficient data for pooling and statistical analysis. Response rates for pain intensity were comparable across treatment groups in each study. In one EERW study, response rates were high across both treatment and placebo arms during the maintenance phase (62% tapentadol, 69% morphine, 50% placebo). For pain relief, tapentadol is no more and no less effective than oxycodone or morphine (low quality evidence).Treatment emergent adverse event rates were high, approximately 50% to 90%. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation) (low quality evidence). There was no advantage of tapentadol over morphine or oxycodone in terms of serious adverse events. The number of people experiencing effects on consciousness, appetite, or thirst was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Information from RCTs on the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol was limited. The available studies were of moderate or small size and used different designs, which prevented pooling of data. Pain relief and adverse events were comparable between the tapentadol and morphine and oxycodone groups.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain; Phenols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Tapentadol
PubMed: 26403220
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011460.pub2 -
European Archives of... Feb 2020To review types and frequencies of adverse events (AE) associated with bone-conduction hearing implants (BCHIs) and active middle-ear implants (aMEIs) as reported in the...
PURPOSE
To review types and frequencies of adverse events (AE) associated with bone-conduction hearing implants (BCHIs) and active middle-ear implants (aMEIs) as reported in the literature.
METHODS
Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE libraries were searched for primary articles in English or German language that reported on adverse events following BCHI or aMEI implantation, included at least five patients and were published between 1996 and 2016. Study characteristics, demographics, and counts of adverse events were tabulated and analyzed within the R statistical programming environment.
RESULTS
Following assessment of the reporting quality of adverse events, we present a brief guideline that potentially improves AE reporting in this field of research. For the full dataset, we summarize study-level adverse event frequencies in terms of ratio of events to ears (REE) by AE groups and by device. For a subset of studies, we also report cumulative incidence (risk) for minor- and major adverse-events by device and by device groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Data analyzed in this review show that: (1) the reporting quality of adverse events associated with BCHI and aMEIs is often very low; (2) adverse events associated with BCHI and aMEIs are qualitatively different and not equally frequent among devices; (3) state-of-the-art implantable BCHIs and aMEIs are a safe treatment option for hearing loss.
Topics: Adult; Cochlear Implants; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss; Humans; Ossicular Prosthesis; Prosthesis Implantation
PubMed: 31749056
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05727-8 -
Cancer Medicine Jul 2020Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed...
BACKGROUND
Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019140673.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32452660
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3095 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2014To examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).
REVIEW METHODS
Databases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).
RESULTS
Of 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.
CONCLUSION
Systematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.
Topics: Checklist; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 24401468
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f7668 -
Clinical Epigenetics Jul 2023To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of FDA-approved isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors in the treatment of IDH-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of FDA-approved isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors in the treatment of IDH-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
METHODS
We used R software to conduct a meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials of IDH inhibitors in the treatment of IDH-mutated AML published in PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to November 15th, 2022.
RESULTS
A total of 1109 IDH-mutated AML patients from 10 articles (11 cohorts) were included in our meta-analysis. The CR rate, ORR rate, 2-year survival (OS) rate and 2-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of newly diagnosed IDH-mutated AML (715 patients) were 47%, 65%, 45% and 29%, respectively. The CR rate, ORR rate, 2-year OS rate, median OS and median EFS of relapsed or refractory (R/R) IDH-mutated AML (394 patients) were 21%, 40%, 15%, 8.21 months and 4.73 months, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most frequently occurring all-grade adverse events and hematologic adverse events were the most frequently occurring ≥ grade 3 adverse events.
CONCLUSION
IDH inhibitor is a promising treatment for R/R AML patients with IDH mutations. For patients with newly diagnosed IDH-mutated AML, IDH inhibitors may not be optimal therapeutic agents due to low CR rates. The safety of IDH inhibitors is controllable, but physicians should always pay attention to and manage the differentiation syndrome adverse events caused by IDH inhibitors. The above conclusions need more large samples and high-quality RCTs in the future to verify.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; DNA Methylation; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Enzyme Inhibitors; Mutation
PubMed: 37434249
DOI: 10.1186/s13148-023-01529-2 -
Global Spine Journal Jan 2023Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Determine if tobacco use is associated with increased risk of postoperative adverse events within 90 days in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery.
METHODS
Databases were queried to identify cohort studies that directly compared smokers with non-smokers and provided the absolute number of adverse events and the population at risk. Data quality was evaluated using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and compared between studies. The grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to assess the strength of the evidence.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies assessing 37 897 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 031 (26.5%) were smokers and 27 866 (73.5%) were nonsmokers. The mean age for the study population was 58 years, and 45% were males. Smoking was not associated with increased risk of one or more major adverse events within 90 days following spine surgery (seven studies, pooled RR 1.13, 95% CI [.75-1.71], I2 = 41%). However, smoking was significantly associated with one or more major adverse events in ≤2 level fusion (three studies, pooled RR 2.46, 95% CI [1.18-5.12], I2 = 0%), but not in fusions of ≥3 levels (four studies, pooled RR .87, 95% CI [.70-1.08], I2 = 0%). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between smoking and any adverse event, nor increased reoperation risk due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, tobacco use was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of adverse events within 90 days in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Our results are limited by the variable reporting methodology for both complication rates as well as smoking incidence between the included individual studies.
PubMed: 36367824
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221110127