-
Systematic Reviews Aug 2021Celiac disease (CD) is one of the most common gluten-related disorders. Although the only effective treatment is a strict gluten-free diet, doubts remain as to whether... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Celiac disease (CD) is one of the most common gluten-related disorders. Although the only effective treatment is a strict gluten-free diet, doubts remain as to whether healthcare professionals take this restriction into consideration when prescribing and dispensing medicines to susceptible patients. This scoping review aimed to find out the current evidence for initiatives that either describe the gluten content of medicines or intend to raise awareness about the risk of prescribing and dispensing gluten-containing medicines in patients with CD and other gluten-related disorders.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted using three search strategies in PubMed/MEDLINE, TripDatabase and Web of Science in April 2021, following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). References from included articles were also examined. Two researchers screened the articles and results were classified according to their main characteristics and outcomes, which were grouped according to the PCC (Population, Concept and Context) framework. The initiatives described were classified into three targeted processes related to gluten-containing medicines: prescription, dispensation and both prescription and dispensation.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 3146 records. After the elimination of duplicates, 3062 articles remained and ultimately 13 full texts were included in the narrative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by Canada and Australia, which each published one article. Most strategies were focused on increasing health professional's knowledge of gluten-containing/gluten-free medications (n = 8), which were basically based on database development from manufacturer data. A wide variability between countries on provided information and labelling of gluten-containing medicines was found.
CONCLUSION
Initiatives regarding the presence of gluten in medicines, including, among others, support for prescribers, the definition of the role of pharmacists, and patients' adherence problems due to incomplete labelling of the medicines, have been continuously developed and adapted to the different needs of patients. However, information is still scarce, and some aspects have not yet been considered, such as effectiveness for the practical use of solutions to support healthcare professionals.
Topics: Celiac Disease; Diet, Gluten-Free; Glutens; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Pharmacists
PubMed: 34364399
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01772-9 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023The aims of this systematic review are to explore the possibilities of using the positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy (PALS) method in the pharmaceutical industry... (Review)
Review
Positron Annihilation Lifetime Spectroscopy as a Special Technique for the Solid-State Characterization of Pharmaceutical Excipients, Drug Delivery Systems, and Medical Devices-A Systematic Review.
The aims of this systematic review are to explore the possibilities of using the positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy (PALS) method in the pharmaceutical industry and to examine the application of PALS as a supportive, predictive method during the research process. In addition, the review aims to provide a comprehensive picture of additional medical and pharmaceutical uses, as the application of the PALS test method is limited and not widely known in this sector. We collected the scientific literature of the last 20 years (2002-2022) from several databases (PubMed, Embase, SciFinder-n, and Google Scholar) and evaluated the data gathered in relation to the combination of three directives, namely, the utilization of the PALS method, the testing of solid systems, and their application in the medical and pharmaceutical fields. The application of the PALS method is discussed based on three large groups: substances, drug delivery systems, and medical devices, starting with simpler systems and moving to more complex ones. The results are discussed based on the functionality of the PALS method, via microstructural analysis, the tracking of ageing and microstructural changes during stability testing, the examination of the effects of excipients and external factors, and defect characterization, with a strong emphasis on the benefits of this technique. The review highlights the wide range of possible applications of the PALS method as a non-invasive analytical tool for examining microstructures and monitoring changes; it can be effectively applied in many fields, alone or with complementary testing methods.
PubMed: 37259399
DOI: 10.3390/ph16020252 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2022Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties.... (Review)
Review
Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. Dexketoprofen has a stronger effect than ketoprofen, which makes it a readily used preparation. The review aims to find in recent original publications data about dexketoprofen and its comparison with other painkilling medications. The systematic literature review was conducted in November 2021 (2018 onwards). We selected 12 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases. In the last 4 years, there have been many publications that shed a new light on dexketoprofen. The article is a comparative analysis of dexketoprofen's action vs other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the combination of dexketoprofen with tramadol vs paracetamol with tramadol. The findings of the review confirm that dexketoprofen is a very good pain reliever more potent than paracetamol. Dexketoprofen produces similar effects to lidocaine and dexmedetomidine. Complex preparations containing dexketoprofen and tramadol are very effective painkilling tandem and are more effective than tramadol and paracetamol therapy in the treatment of acute pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketoprofen; Tramadol; Tromethamine
PubMed: 35299123
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112819 -
Current Rheumatology Reviews Jun 2023To investigate injection site pain (ISP) and other injection site outcomes caused by biologics administered alongside citrate-free (CF) and citrate-containing (CC)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate injection site pain (ISP) and other injection site outcomes caused by biologics administered alongside citrate-free (CF) and citrate-containing (CC) formulations.
METHODS
Electronic literature databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for clinical trials and observational studies reporting on injection site outcomes after subcutaneous administration of biologics. Studies with unknown excipient formulations were excluded. The primary outcome was ISP, and secondary outcomes included any other reported injection site reactions (ISRs). Meta-analysis approaches were used to aggregate evidence identified via the conducted systematic literature review.
RESULTS
A total of two observational studies, two cross-over/sequential trials, and three head-tohead comparison trials directly comparing CF with CC biologics were identified, as well as seven placebo-controlled trials. Evidence from five of the seven direct comparison studies suggested reduced pain perception at the injection site when CF formulations were applied. Findings for other ISRs were balanced between both formulations, with slightly favorable results for preparations without citrate. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found no significant difference between arms with CF formulations and placebo regarding the proportion of patients experiencing ISP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28).
CONCLUSION
Excipient formulations are rarely specified in studies assessing pain and other ISRs of subcutaneously administered biologics. The available data indicate that subcutaneous administration of biologic agents without citrate may be associated with lower pain perception outcomes compared with treatment using CC formulations. Importantly, ISP is influenced by many factors which may have affected the results. More research is needed to assess how formulation excipients influence ISRs.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Biological Factors; Citric Acid; Excipients; Injection Site Reaction; Pain; Biological Products; Pain Perception
PubMed: 36043729
DOI: 10.2174/1573397118666220829123713 -
Allergy Jan 2023For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS])... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.
Topics: Humans; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Excipients; Hypersensitivity; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Polysorbates; Vaccine Excipients; Vaccines
PubMed: 36321821
DOI: 10.1111/all.15571 -
Vaccine May 2022There is an urgent need for improved influenza vaccines especially for older adults due to the presence of immunosenescence. It is therefore highly relevant to compare... (Review)
Review
Importance and value of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in the care of older adults from a European perspective - A systematic review of recently published literature on real-world data.
BACKGROUND
There is an urgent need for improved influenza vaccines especially for older adults due to the presence of immunosenescence. It is therefore highly relevant to compare enhanced influenza vaccines with traditional influenza vaccines with respect to their effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To compare vaccine efficacy and effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccines (aTIV/aQIV) vs. non-adjuvanted standard-dose (TIV/QIV) and high-dose (TIV-HD/QIV-HD) influenza vaccines regarding influenza-related outcomes in older adults, complementing findings from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)'s systematic review of enhanced seasonal influenza vaccines from February 2020.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase and MEDLINE to identify randomised controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews, published since ECDC's systematic review (between 7 February 2020 and 6 September 2021). Included studies were appraised with either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, ROBINS-I or AMSTAR 2.
RESULTS
Eleven analyses from nine real-world evidence (RWE) studies comprising ∼53 million participants and assessing the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aTIV vs. TIV, QIV and/or TIV-HD in adults aged ≥65 years over the 2006/07-2008/09 and 2011/12-2019/20 influenza seasons were identified. Nine analyses found that aTIV was significantly more effective than TIV and QIV in reducing influenza-related outcomes by clinical setting and suspected influenza outbreaks (rVE ranging from 7.5% to 25.6% for aTIV vs. TIV and 7.1% to 36.3% for aTIV vs. QIV). Seven analyses found similar effectiveness of aTIV vs. TIV-HD in reducing influenza-related medical encounters, inpatient stays and hospitalisations/emergency room visits. In three analyses, aTIV was significantly more effective than TIV-HD in reducing influenza-related medical encounters and office visits (rVE ranging from 6.6% to 16.6%). Risk of bias of identified studies was moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that both adjuvanted and high-dose vaccines are effective alternatives for vaccination programmes in older adults and preferable over conventional standard-dose vaccines.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Aged; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Polysorbates; Squalene
PubMed: 35459556
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.04.019 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Dec 2023The worldwide prevalence of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (uUTIs) caused by multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli is increasing. To address this emergency,... (Review)
Review
The worldwide prevalence of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (uUTIs) caused by multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli is increasing. To address this emergency, international guidelines recommend reducing administration of fluoroquinolones, in the context of growing resistance and the long-lasting and potentially disabling side effects of these drugs. The favoured drug to replace fluoroquinolones is fosfomycin trometamol (FT), a well-known derivate of phosphonic acid with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) recently reduced the susceptibility breakpoint for E. coli from 32 mg/L to 8 mg/L regarding FT used for uUTIs. This might lead to increased appropriate use of oral fosfomycin target therapy against E. coli and other microorganisms, and may be associated with a high likelihood of success. For species such as Klebsiella spp, particularly MDR strains, the absence of clinical breakpoints might lead to reduced use of oral fosfomycin, particularly if minimum inhibitory concentration is not available. To address this issue, this review presents an overview of the preclinical evidence on the activity of FT, and a systematic review of the clinical activity of FT in uUTIs in women, and in the prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy. The findings indicate that the safety and microbiological and clinical effectiveness of a single oral dose of FT are similar to that for comparator regimens with longer treatment schedules in women with uUTI, and FT can be considered a viable alternative to fluoroquinolones for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prostate biopsy. These observations and a broad clinical experience support the empirical use of FT for treating uUTI and indicate that FT is a promising candidate to effectively counteract antibiotic-resistant uUTIs throughout Europe.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Fosfomycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tromethamine; Escherichia coli; Expert Testimony; Urinary Tract Infections; Anti-Infective Agents; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 37748624
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106983 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.The eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.Meta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.None of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.
Topics: Dermatitis, Irritant; Dermatitis, Occupational; Emollients; Excipients; Gloves, Protective; Hand Dermatoses; Humans; Organic Chemicals; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior
PubMed: 29708265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004414.pub3 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Oct 2021Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.
Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Consensus; GRADE Approach; Humans; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34153517
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.06.006 -
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